DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2004-122 

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 19, 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  military  record  by  canceling  his 
four-year extension contract and replacing it with a six-year reenlistment contract.  He 
alleged that his ship’s personnel office told him that he could cancel the March 19, 2004, 
extension  contract  at  a  later  date  and  reenlist  for  six  years  to  maximize  his  selective 
reenlistment bonus (SRB).1  After being notified that he was not selected for the Coast 
Guard’s  Pre-Commissioning  Program  for  Enlisted  Personnel  (PPEP)2  the  applicant 
attempted to cancel the extension contract and reenlist for six years, but was told that he 
would have to wait until three months prior to the end of his enlistment to cancel the 
extension. 
 

The  applicant  further  alleged  that  shortly  after  telling  him  he  could  cancel  the 
extension  without  any  negative  impact  on  his  reenlistment,  the  personnel  office 
admitted  they  were  mistaken  and  that  if  he  cancelled  the  extension  contract  and 
reenlisted,  then  his  SRB  would  be  reduced  by  the  number  of  months  previously 

                                                 
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,  that  is  published  in  an 
ALCOAST.  
 
2  The  Coast  Guard’s  Pre-Commissioning  Program  for  Enlisted  Personnel  (PPEP)  program  is  an 
opportunity  for  top  performing  enlisted  personnel  to  complete  their  Bachelor’s  degree,  attend  Officer 
Candidate School (OCS), and receive a Coast Guard commission.  

obligated  by  that  extension.    The  applicant  now  seeks  to  replace  that  four-year 
extension  with  a  six-year  reenlistment,  which  would  be  calculated  with  seventy-two 
months of newly obligated service, resulting in a significantly larger SRB. 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On August 29, 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years, through August 28, 2004.  On February 5, 2004, the applicant signed a page seven 
(CG-3307) in which he acknowledged being advised that he was eligible to reenlist or 
extend his enlistment and that his Zone A SRB multiple was three in accordance with 
ALCOAST  182/03.    On  March  19,  2004,  the  applicant  signed  a  four-year  extension 
contract, through August 28, 2008, to “lock in” the SRB multiple while awaiting possible 
selection  for  the  PPEP  program.    The  contract  indicates  that  it  was  signed  at  the 
“request  of  individual,”  rather  than  to  attend  school  or  receive  tuition  assistance.  
Under  ALCOAST  182/03,  he  received  a  Zone  A  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  three  and 
calculated with forty-eight months of newly obligated service.  Shortly after signing the 
March  19,  2004,  extension  contract,  the  applicant  sought  to  cancel  the  extension  and 
reenlist  for  six  years  to  receive  an  SRB  calculated  with  seventy-two  months  of  newly 
obligated  service,  but  discovered  that  if  he  cancelled  the  extension  contract  his  SRB 
would be reduced by the number of months obligated by the extension. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On  June  29,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  TJAG noted that the four-
year extension contract was signed at the “request of individual” and that the applicant 
is bound by his acceptance of the contract, he was of majority age, and was responsible 
for his actions.  TJAG also noted that there was no allegation of fraud or duress, and 
there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  he  was  misinformed  about  his  four-year 
extension contract and the effect it would have on his SRB if he attempted to reenlist at 
a later date. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  1,  2004,  the  Chair  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 
applicant and invited him to respond within thirty days.  The applicant responded on 
August 8, 2004, and requested a thirty-day extension in which to respond to the Coast 
Guard’s advisory opinion.  The Chair granted the applicant’s request on August 3, 2004, 
but  the  applicant  telephoned  the  BCMR  on  August  23,  2004,  and  indicated  that  he 
would not be submitting a response to the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual  
 

Article 1.G.19.2.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that extension contracts for 
terms of two years or less may be canceled prior to their operative dates to allow the 
member to sign a new, longer extension or reenlistment contract to receive an SRB.   
 

Article  1.G.15.e.  states  that  the  term  of  enlistment  for  first  term  personnel may 
only be extended for the minimum period required to attend school, to participate in 
the Coast Guard Tuition Assistance Program, or for duty INCONUS or OUTCONUS.3  
Commanding  officers  are  authorized  to  extend  these  members  in  order  to  meet  the 
minimum service required.  
 
Pertinent ALCOASTs 
 
 
ALCOAST 182/03 was issued by the Commandant on April 24, 2003, and was in 
effect  from  July  1,  2003,  through  July  31,  2004.    Under  ALCOAST  182/03,  ET2s  were 
eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of three.  
 
ALCOAST 306/04 was issued by the Commandant on June 21, 2004, and went 
 
into effect on August 1, 2004.  It remains in effect.  Under ALCOAST 306/04, ET2s are 
eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of two.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2.  

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

 
 
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 appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
On  March  19,  2004,  the  applicant  signed  a  four-year  extension  contract 
and was counseled that he would receive a Zone A SRB.  However, the applicant was 
not eligible to extend his enlistment on March 19, 2004.  Article 3.C.5.5. of the Personnel 
Manual states “under no circumstances will an individual be permitted to extend their 
enlistment  more  than  three  months  early  for  SRB  purposes  alone.”    The  personnel 
manual furthers states “a member who must extend for some other reason (i.e., transfer, 
training, advancement, or tuition assistance) may extend for a period greater than the 
minimum  required  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  entitlement  to  an  SRB.”  The  applicant 
enlisted in the Coast Guard on August 29, 2000, and his enlistment expired on August 
28, 2004.  Absent any of the qualifying reasons under Article 3.C.5.5., the applicant did 
not become eligible to extend or reenlist until after May 28, 2004.  In this case, there is 
no  evidence  in  the  record  that  indicates  that  the  purpose  of  the  applicant’s  extension 
was for any of the qualifying reasons listed in Article 3.C.5.5.  In fact, on the March 2004 
extension  contract,  Block  9  indicates  that  his  reason  for  extending  was  “request  of 
individual.”    In  accordance  with  Article  3.C.5.5.,  extending  more  than  three  months 
early at the request of the individual is not a qualifying purpose. 
 

3. 

The  Board  finds  that  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled,  he 
would have been told that he was not eligible to extend or reenlist on March 19, 2004.  
He should have been advised that he had to wait until after May 28, 2004, to sign a new 
contract.    Moreover,  he  would  have  been  advised  that  previously  obligated  service 
diminishes  an  SRB, and so waiting to sign a contract would be advantageous.  When 
                                                 
3 INCONUS:  Inside the Continental United States.  OUTCONUS:  Outside the Continental United States. 

ALCOAST 306/04 was issued on June 21, 2004, he would have known that the multiple 
for  his  rating  was  falling  from  three  to  two  on  August  1,  2004,  and  that  it  would 
therefore  behoove  him  to  reenlist  on  July  31,  2004.    By  waiting  until  July  31,  2004,  to 
extend  or  reenlist,  the  applicant  would  have  less  previously  obligated  service  and 
would still receive an SRB calculated with a multiple of three.  
 
 
Furthermore,  the  Board  notes  that  Article  1.G.15.e.  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Manual clearly states “personnel in their first term with the Coast Guard may 
only  extend  their  original  enlistment  to  attend  training,  to  participate  in  the  Coast 
Guard Tuition Assistance Program, or for duty INCONUS or OUTCONUS.”  There is 
no evidence in the record that the applicant extended for any of these purposes.  On his 
March  2004  extension  contract,  the  applicant  stated  that  the  reason  for  the  extension 
was “request of individual”.  The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on August 29, 
2000,  and  his  first  term  expired  on  August  28,  2004.    In  accordance  with  the  Article 
1.G.15.e.,  he  was  not  eligible  to  extend  his  enlistment  prior  to  May  28,  2004,  for  any 
reasons other than those noted above, because he was in his first term with the Coast 
Guard. 
  
 
findings above.   
 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  in  part  in  accordance  with  the 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

4. 

5. 

 
 
 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG, 

for 

correction of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The  March  19,  2004,  extension  contract  shall  be  null  and  void.  A  six-year 
reenlistment  contract  dated  July  31,  2004,  shall  be  placed  in  his  record.    The  Coast 
Guard shall pay the applicant any amount due under ALCOAST 182/03 as a result of 
this correction. 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

                                     
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                     Suzanne L. Wilson 
 
 
 

 

 
 Richard Walter