DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2004-121 

FINAL DECISION 

 

 

Author: Hale, D. 
 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on May 18, 2004, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction.  
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  29,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to 
a  Zone  B  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  calculated  with  seventy-two  months  of 
newly obligated service.1  He alleged that he was miscounseled about his eligibility for 
the SRB and that if he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six 
years on May 13, 2003, in lieu of extending, to receive the maximum SRB.  
 

In  support  of  his  allegations  of  improper  counseling,  the  applicant  provided  a 
detailed  explanation  of  the  events  preceding  his  signing  the  May  13,  2003,  six-year 
extension  contract.    The  applicant  noted  that  when  he  questioned  his  unit’s  yeoman 
regarding the Zone B SRB that he was told he would receive for signing the extension 
contract,  the  yeoman  was  unable  to  provide  an  answer  so  he  (the  yeoman)  contacted 
Human Resources Services Information Center/Personnel Service Center (HRSIC/PSC) 
for additional guidance.  The applicant alleged that HRSIC informed the yeoman that 
the  applicant  could  indeed  extend  for  seventy-two  months  in  order  to  receive  the 
maximum SRB.  The applicant alleged that the yet unsigned extension paperwork was 
                                                 
1  SRBs allow the Coast Guard to offer a reenlistment incentive to members who possess highly desired 
skills at certain points during their career. SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty 
service, the number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment 
contract,  and  the  need  of  the  Coast  Guard  for  personnel  with  the  member’s  particular  skills,  which  is 
reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB authorized for the member’s skill/rating, which is published in an 
ALCOAST.  Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty 
service are in “Zone A”, while those who have more than 6 but less than 10 years of active duty service 
are in “Zone B”.   Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone. Personnel Manual, Article 3.C. 
and 3.C.4.a.  
 

forwarded to another yeoman at another unit, who further reviewed the documents for 
correctness.    Moreover,  the  applicant  alleged,  a  Chief  Warrant  Officer  at  the  Marine 
Safety Office (MSO) also reviewed the documents before signing them and having the 
applicant sign them. 

 
The applicant alleged that on April 27, 2004, he contacted the personnel unit at 
his new duty station regarding payment for the Zone B SRB he was promised pursuant 
to his May 13, 2003, extension.  He was told that an error had been made and that he 
was not entitled to the SRB because the operative date of the extension was beyond his 
10th active duty anniversary of October 5, 2003.2  The applicant also alleged that he was 
never counseled regarding the effect his January 4, 1999, six-year extension would have 
on the SRB he would receive for his May 13, 2003, six-year extension.  

 
The applicant also alleged that he was not counseled regarding his entitlement to 
a 10th active duty anniversary SRB.  He stated that if he had been counseled regarding 
the  10th  anniversary  SRB,  then  the  problems  with  his  May  13,  2003,  extension  would 
have  been  discovered  and  he  could  have  cancelled  the  May  2003  extension  and 
reenlisted or extended prior to his 10th active duty anniversary to receive a Zone B SRB.3   

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years on October 5, 1993, with 
an expiration of enlistment (EOE) of October 4, 1997.  On July 25, 1995, he extended his 
enlistment  for  fifteen  months  for  training  requirements  and  extended  for  another 
seventeen months on April 9, 1998, for obligated service purposes.  On January 4, 1999, 
the  applicant  reenlisted  for  six  years  with  an  EOE  of  January  3,  2005,  and  received  a 
Zone A SRB.  On May 13, 2003, he signed a six-year extension contract with an EOE of 
January 3, 2011, to obligate additional service for transfer overseas, and the operative 
date  of  the  extension  was  January  4,  2005.    The  May  13,  2003,  extension  contract 
indicates  that  he  was  eligible  to  receive  a  Zone  B  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  3.5  and 
calculated  with  seventy-two  months  of  newly  obligated  service.    In  signing  the  May 
2003 extension contract, the applicant acknowledged that he fully understood the effect 
his extension would have on his current and future SRB eligibility. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

The  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  (TJAG)  denied  the  requested 
relief but recommended that alternative relief be granted.  TJAG recommended that the 
Board replace the May 13, 2003, six-year extension contract with a six-year reenlistment 
contract,  thus  qualifying  the  applicant  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  fifty-two 
months of newly obligated service.   

                                                 
2 Coast Guard members are entitled to a Zone B SRB if “they have completed at least 6 but not more than 
10 years active service on the date of reenlistment or the operative date of the extension.” Article 3.C.4.b.3. 
of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. 
 
3 The applicant also asked the Board to mandate SRB and contract training for the two personnel units 
involved  in  the  processing  of  his  extension  contract  and  SRB.    However,  under  BCMR  regulations,  the 
applicant may only request changes to his own military record. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On June 30, 2004, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  thirty  days.    He  responded  on  July  15, 
2004, and again on August 19, 2004. 

 
Although the applicant conceded that according to regulation his SRB should be 
calculated with fifty-two months of newly obligated service, he nonetheless requested 
that  the  Board  direct  the  Coast  Guard  to  calculate  his  Zone  B  SRB  with  seventy-two 
months of newly obligated service.  He reasoned that he signed the extension contract 
in  good  faith  and  that  he  had  no  part  in  drawing  up  the  extension  contract  and  the 
administrative remarks because they were drawn up solely by Coast Guard personnel 
with  expertise  in  matters  of  this  nature.    Moreover,  the  applicant  feels  that  the  “only 
part  I  had  during  the  extension  process  was  agree  [sic] to sign the extension contract 
that I had lined up for my retirement from the Coast Guard.”   

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant’s  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard’s  submission,  and 
applicable law: 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 

 

 
1. 

 
3. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely filed. 
 

2. 

Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to 
proper  counseling  concerning  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB  when  he  signed  a  six-year 
extension  contract  on  May  13,  2003,  to  obligate  service  for  an  overseas  transfer.    The 
Board finds that the applicant was erroneously counseled because he was told he would 
receive a Zone B SRB for his six-year extension.  The counseling was erroneous because 
the  applicant  would  not  be  eligible  for  the  SRB  if  he  signed  an  extension  contract 
because  the  operative  date  of  that  extension  would  be  beyond  his  10th  anniversary.  
However,  when  an  applicant  proves,  as  this  applicant  has,  that  he  has  received 
improper counseling, the Board’s policy is not to offend the regulation by fulfilling the 
erroneous promises, but to return the applicant to the position he would have been in 
had  he  been  properly  counseled.    Therefore,  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly 
counseled,  he  would  have  been  advised  to  sign  a  reenlistment  contract  instead  of  an 
extension  contract,  because  the  operative  date  of  the  May  13,  2003,  extension  was 
January  4,  2005,  approximately  thirteen  months  after  his  10th  anniversary  date  of 
October  5,  2003,  and  SRBs  are  not  authorized  for  members  who  have  more  than  ten 
years of active service. 

The applicant asked the Board not only to change his record to show that 
he is entitled to a Zone B SRB, but also to show that the SRB should be calculated with 
seventy-two months of newly obligated service.  However, as TJAG aptly noted in its 
advisory opinion, the applicant’s SRB cannot be calculated with seventy-two months of 
newly obligated service.  The applicant’s previous extension obligated service through 
January 3, 2005.  Therefore, his six-year reenlistment through May 12, 2009, adds only 
fifty-two months of newly obligated service to his record.   

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  further  alleged  that  he  was  not  counseled  regarding  his 
eligibility for a 10th anniversary SRB, and that if he had been properly counseled then 
the  errors  in  his  May  13,  2004,  extension  would  have  been  detected  and  would  have 
afforded him the opportunity to cancel the faulty extension and reenlist or extend for 
the 10th anniversary SRB.  However, in light of the fact that the applicant had to obligate 
service in May 2003 to accept his transfer orders and the fact that the Board is granting 
relief with respect to the contract dated May 13, 2003, the issue of his 10th anniversary 
SRB counseling is moot. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  

 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

The military record of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, shall be corrected to 
show  that  he  reenlisted  for  six  years  on  May  13,  2003,  to  receive  a  Zone  B  SRB  as 
provided under ALCOAST 329/02.  The six-year extension contract he signed on that 
date shall be null and void.  The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result 
of this correction. 
 
 
                                                                         
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                     Suzanne L. Wilson 

 
 Richard Walter 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried