DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2004-145 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 June 30, 2004, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.   
 

This final decision, dated January 27 , 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  canceling  his 
April 1, 2003, 3-year, 5-month extension contract.  The applicant stated that this would 
allow  him  to  receive  a  Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 calculated with 48 
months of obligated service for his 4-year reenlistment, which he signed on February 5, 
2004.    He  alleged  that  when  he  signed  the  extension  contract  on  April  1,  2003,  to 
obligate sufficient service to accept his transfer orders, he was not properly counseled 
regarding any effect the extension and obligated service would have on future SRBs.   
 

After signing the February 2004 reenlistment contract, the applicant learned that 
his SRB would be reduced by the number of months of service obligated by the April 
2003  extension  contract.    He  alleged  that  because  his  February  5,  2004,  reenlistment 
contract  was  signed  prior  to  the  February  7,  2004,  operative  date  of  his  April  2003 

                                                 
1 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 author-
ized 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.” COMDTINST 7220.33. 

extension, his extension should have been cancelled and his SRB calculated with the full 
48 months of newly obligated service.     

 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  February  7,  2000,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of 4 
years,  through  February  6,  2004.    On  April  1,  2003,  the  applicant  signed  a  3-year,  5-
month  extension  contract  to  obligate  service  (OBLISERV)  for  transfer  to  the  Coast 
Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) Puget Sound.2  The extension obligated him to serve 
through July 6, 2007.  When he signed the extension contract, the applicant was an MK3 
(Machinery  Technician,  Third  Class)  awaiting  advancement  to  MK2.    The  extension 
contract included the following language:  
 

EFFECT OF EXTENSION/REEXTENSION ON SRB ENTITLEMENT 

 
I  fully  understand  the  effect  my  extension/reextension  will  have  upon  my  current  and 
future SRB eligibility.  I understand that continued entitlement to unpaid installments may 
be terminated and a prorated portion of advance bonus payments recouped if I am con-
sidered  not  to  be  technically  qualified  or  unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  rating  for 
which  the  bonus  was  paid,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  COMDTINST  7220.33 
(series).  I further acknowledge that I have been given the chance to review COMDTINST 
7220.33  (series)  concerning  my  eligibility  for  SRB  and  have  had  all  my  questions 
answered. 

There  is  an  administrative  entry  (Page  7)  in  his  record,  dated  May  14,  2003, 

 
 
indicating that the applicant was counseled regarding SRB entitlement.  
 

On  July  1,  2003,  the  applicant  reported  to  MSO  Puget  Sound,  and  he  was 

advanced from MK3 to MK2 on December 1, 2003.  

 
On February 5, 2004, the applicant reenlisted for 4 years and was counseled that 
he would receive a Zone A SRB for reenlisting.  There is a page 7 in the record dated 
January  15,  2004,  indicating  that  the  applicant’s  SRB  would  be  calculated  with  48 
months  of  newly  obligated  service.    The  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  further 
indicates the applicant was “obligating 48 new months for SRB purposes.”  There is also 
a Career Intentions Worksheet in the record dated January 13, 2004, which contains a 
handwritten  notation  from  the  person  administering  the  oath  for  the  applicant’s 
reenlistment,  which  states  “cancel  extension  that  is  to  begin  07  Feb  04,  reenlisting  for 
SRB purposes.” 
 

The  record  also  contains  a  memorandum  dated  June  17,  2004,  submitted  by  a 
yeoman first class from the applicant’s current command in support of his application.  
                                                 
2 Article 4.A.5.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that a full tour of duty for an MK in the grade of E4 
stationed at MSO Puget Sound is 4 years. 
 

In that memo, the yeoman states that the applicant was miscounseled on two separate 
occasions  regarding  his  SRB  and  as  a  result  he  should  receive  the  SRB  that  he  was 
promised. 
 

 
 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Article 1.G.14.a.2. of the Personnel Manual provides that a member may extend 
 
his reenlistment “[f]or any number of full years and/or full months up to six years to 
ensure sufficient obligated service for these purposes: … c. INCONUS and OUTCONUS 
assignments; [see] Article 4.B.6.” 

 
Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual provides that members with less than 
six years of active duty will not normally be transferred “unless they reenlist or extend 
to  have  enough  obligated  service  for  a  full  tour  on  reporting  to  a  new  unit.”    Article 
4.B.6.b.  provides  that  the  transfer  orders  of a member who refuses to meet the OBLI-
SERV requirement may be canceled, and the member will be reassigned for the remain-
der of his enlistment in accordance with the needs of the Coast Guard. 

 
Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual provides that “all personnel with 10 years 
or less of active service who reenlist or extend for any period, shall be counseled on the 
SRB  program.    They  shall  sign  an  Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307  (Page  7),  … 
outlining the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.”   

 
 
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.  A 
canceled short extension contract executed to fulfill an OBLISERV requirement does not 
diminish the size of the SRB received under the new contract. 
 

Article  3.C.5.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  when  a  member  reenlists 
before  finishing  his  previous  contract  term,  “[a]ll  periods  of  unexecuted  service 
obligation … will be deducted from SRB computation.”   

 
Article 3.C.11. of the Personnel Manual states that a page 7 entry shall be made 
for  personnel within 3 months of the end of their enlistment and any time a member 
reenlists or extends their enlistment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  August  18,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  (TJAG) 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  TJAG stated there was no 

authority  to  cancel  the  applicant’s  April  2003  extension  contract  without  the 
cancellation  affecting  the  applicant’s  subsequent  SRB.    Under  Article  3.C.5.6.  of  the 
Personnel Manual, TJAG stated, only extensions of two years or less may be cancelled 
prior to their operative date for the purpose of immediate reenlistment without any loss 
of SRB entitlement.  TJAG asserted that because the applicant’s extension was for more 
than  two  years,  the  SRB  he  received  for  his  February  5,  2004,  reenlistment  must  be 
reduced  by  the  number  of  months  previously  obligated  by  the  April  2003  extension 
contract. 

 
TJAG  recommended  that  the  Board  offer  the  applicant  two  options.    First,  the 
applicant could void the February 5, 2004, reenlistment and return to the Coast Guard 
any  payments  he  may  have  received  pursuant  to  his  SRB.    The  second  option  is  to 
correct the applicant’s record to show that his SRB is calculated with 7 months of newly 
obligated service. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

On  August  24,  2004,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  TJAG’s  advisory 
opinion and invited him to respond.  The BCMR received the applicant’s response on 
September 3, 2004.  In his reply, the applicant asserted that he was miscounseled on two 
separate  occasions  regarding  his  SRB  eligibility  and  that  “faulty  facts”  provided  his 
basis for deciding to extend his enlistment.  He also alleged that he could have chosen 
not  to  extend  or  have  been  transferred  sans  extension  with  the  approval  of  both 
commands. 
 

 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 submissions, and appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

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

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

Since  his  reporting  date  for  his  new  assignment  was  July  1,  2003,  the 
applicant  was  required,  by  or  before  that  date,  to  have  obligated  sufficient  service  to 
complete  a  4-year  tour  at  his  new  assignment  pursuant  to  Article  4.B.6.a.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.  Although  the  applicant  argues  that  he  could  have  chosen  not  to 
extend  or  have  been  transferred sans extension with the approval of both commands, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  or  the  respective 
commands would have granted such requests.   

 
3. 

The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the 
applicant  was  properly  counseled  when  he  signed  the  3-year,  5-month  extension 

contract to obligate service for transfer to Puget Sound. The record contains a copy of 
the applicant’s extension contract dated April 1, 2003, and it contains a paragraph that 
states the member has been counseled about SRBs, has had an opportunity to read the 
rules, and fully understands the effect his extension will have on his current and future 
SRB  eligibility.    The  applicant  signed  his  name  in  the  space  below  the  paragraph.  
Moreover,  there  is  a  page  7  in  his  record  dated  May  14,  2003,  documenting  SRB 
counseling,  and  this  indicates  that  the  applicant  received  proper  counseling  when  he 
signed  the  extension  contract.    The  yeoman  first  class  who  alleged  that  the  applicant 
was  miscounseled  when  he  signed  the  extension  contract  was  not  at  the  applicant’s 
prior command when he did so.   

 
4. 

4. 

5. 

Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to 
proper counseling concerning his eligibility for an SRB when he reenlisted for 4 years 
on February 5, 2004.  The applicant was given improper counseling when he was told 
that  his  SRB  would  be  calculated  based  on  48  months  of  newly  obligated  service. 
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 if he 
had been properly counseled.  Therefore, if the applicant had been properly counseled 
in  2004,  he  would  have  been  told  that  pursuant  to  Article  3.C.5.1.,  his  SRB  would  be 
reduced by the number of months previously obligated by the April 2003 extension. 
 

The Board agrees with TJAG’s assessment that the applicant’s command 
intended  to  cancel  the  April  2003  extension  contract  when  the  applicant  signed  the 
February 2004 reenlistment contract.  This intent is relatively clear given the nature of 
the  notation  on  the  February  2004  Career  Intentions  Worksheet.    However,  as  TJAG 
aptly noted, there was simply no authority to cancel the applicant’s extension without 
the SRB being reduced by the number of months previously obligated by the April 2003 
extension. Article 1.G.19.2.b. 
 
 
discretion to void his February 5, 2004, reenlistment contract. 

Therefore,  relief  should  be  granted  in  part,  by  giving  the  applicant  the 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

ORDER 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied.  However, the applicant shall have the following options: 

 
At the applicant’s discretion, the February 5, 2004, reenlistment contract shall be 
removed from his record as null and void, in which case the Coast Guard may recoup 
any SRB payments he has received.  In the alternative, his record shall be corrected to 
show that the SRB for his February 5, 2004, reenlistment is calculated with 7 months of 
newly obligated service. 

 

 
 

        

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         Thomas H. Van Horn 

 
 

 

 
 Adrian Sevier