DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-154 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

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 July 19, 2004, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  19,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to 
a selective reenlistment bonus  (SRB)1 calculated with a multiple  of 2.5, instead of the 
multiple of 2.0 that he received for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on May 1, 
2003.   

 
The applicant alleged that when he signed a six-year extension contract on May 
1,  2003,  he  was  counseled  that  he  would  receive  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2.5.  
According  to  the  applicant,  his  Commanding  Officer  (CO)  and  a  yeoman  from  his 

                                                 
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. Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone. Personnel Manual, 
Article 3.C. and 3.C.4.a. Coast Guard members who have at least six years but no more than ten years of 
active duty service are in “Zone B.” COMDTINST 7220.33. 
 

personnel reporting unit (PERSRU), told him that he was eligible for an SRB multiple of 
2.5 because he was a boatswain’s mate, second class (BM2), in Zone B, with coxswain 
certification.  The applicant further alleged that shortly after his SRB payments began, 
he noticed that the SRB had been computed with a multiple of 2.0, and not the 2.5 he 
was told that he would receive. 

 
On  his  application  to  the  BCMR,  the  applicant  alleged  that  his  reenlistment 
contract erroneously identified ALCOAST 329/02 as being in effect at the time of his 
reenlistment.    He  alleged,  however,  that  ALCOAST  182/03  was  the  applicable 
ALCOAST  at  the  time  of  his  reenlistment.  Finally,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  only 
reenlisted for six years because he had been promised a multiple of 2.5 in accordance 
with ALCOAST 182/03, and that if he had known that he was not eligible for a multiple 
of  2.5,  then  he  would  have  extended  his  enlistment  and  reenlisted  at  a  later  date  to 
receive the 2.5 multiple. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on March 19, 1996, with an expiration 
of enlistment (EOE) of March 18, 2000.  On January 18, 2000, he extended his enlistment 
for  three  months,  with  the  permission  of  the  Military  Personnel  Command,  with  an 
EOE of June 18, 2000.  On May 3, 2000, he reenlisted for three years for a Zone A SRB, 
with  an  EOE  of  May  2,  2003.    On  October  23,  2001,  he  was  certified  as  a  small  boat 
coxswain.  On May 1, 2003, the applicant reenlisted for six years as a BM2, and gained 
entitlement  to  a  Zone  B  SRB.    The  applicant’s  enlistment  contract  states  that  he  is 
entitled to a Zone B SRB in accordance with ALCOAST 329/02. 

 
The  applicant  submitted  several  documents  to  sustain  his  claim  that  the  Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  when  he  reenlisted  on  May  1,  2003.    The  first 
document is a memorandum from a Chief Warrant Officer (CWO), dated January 12, 
2004.  In that memorandum, the CWO stated that he was the officer in charge of the 
Coast Guard station when the applicant reenlisted and that he did not recall counseling 
or signing an administrative remarks (Page 7)2 to document the applicant’s counseling 
for an SRB.  The CWO stated that he probably “went over with him [the applicant] what 
his SRB might be.” 
 

The second document is an undated memorandum from a yeoman at his unit’s 
PERSRU that states that she checked the applicant’s personnel record and did not see 
any Page 7s or other counseling documents with regards to the SRB he received for his 
May 1, 2003, reenlistment. 
 
                                                 
2 A CG-3307 (Administrative Remarks, or Page 7) entry documents any counseling that is provided to a 
service member as well as any other noteworthy events that occur during that member’s military career.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  18,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the requested relief 
but grant the applicant alternative relief.  The JAG stated that in an effort to afford the 
applicant a result that most closely represents the bargain he claims, the Coast Guard 
recommends that the Board offer the applicant two options.  First, the applicant could 
choose  to  have  the  Board  void  the  May  1,  2003,  reenlistment  contract  and  be 
immediately discharged.  The JAG noted if the applicant chooses this option, he would 
be required to repay the Coast Guard any SRB payments already received.  The second 
option recommended by the JAG was to have the Board correct the applicant’s record 
by explicitly stating that the applicant was only entitled to an SRB with a multiple of 
2.0, in accordance with ALCOAST 329/02.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 19, 2004, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    On  November  19,  2004,  the 
applicant requested an extension to reply to the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.  On 
December  22,  2004,  the  Chair  granted  the  applicant’s  request  and  stated  that  the 
deadline to submit his response was January 17, 2005.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Article 3.C.3. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (Written Agreements) states 
that “[a]ll personnel with 10 years or less of active service who reenlist or extend for any 
period,  however  brief,  shall  be  counseled  on  the  SRB  program.    They  shall  sign  an 
Administrative Remarks, CG 3301 (Page 7), service record entry outlining the effect that 
particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
 

ALCOAST 329/02 was issued by the Commandant on July 3, 2002, and was in 
effect from August 5, 2002, through June 30, 2003.  It authorized SRBs for members who 
reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments  and  established  a  multiple  of  2.0  for 
BM2s with an additional 0.5 multiple added for members possessing eligible surfman 
qualification codes. 

 
 
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, BM2s were 
eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2.0,  with  an  additional  0.5 
multiple added for members possessing eligible coxswain competency codes. 

 
ALCOAST 306/04 was issued by the Commandant on June 21, 2004, and went 
into effect on August 1, 2004.  Under ALCOAST 306/04, BM1s are eligible for a Zone B 

SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2.0,  with  an  additional  0.5  multiple  added  for 
members possessing eligible coxswain competency codes. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

4. 

 
5. 

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 May 1, 2003, the applicant signed a six-year reenlistment contract and 
on the face of the document it states that he would receive a Zone B SRB in accordance 
with ALCOAST 329/02.  He alleged that he was promised an SRB multiple of 2.5.  The 
record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  not  properly  counseled  with  a  Page  7  to 
document  SRB  counseling,  as  required  by  Article  3.C.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
Article 3.C.3. states that personnel with ten years or less of active service who reenlist 
for any period shall be counseled on the SRB program and shall sign a Page 7 outlining 
the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.  Such a Page 7 would have 
documented  the  SRB multiple  for  which  the  applicant  was  eligible.    The  Board  notes 
that the only evidence of SRB counseling in the record is a memorandum in which the 
applicant’s CO states that he “went over with him [the applicant] what his SRB might 
be.”  
 
 
The  ALCOAST  in  effect  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  was 
ALCOAST  329/02,  and  it  was  effective  from  August  5,  2002,  through  June  30,  2003.  
Under ALCOAST 329/02, the applicant was eligible for a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 
2.0.  Although the applicant alleged that ALCOAST 182/03 was in effect at the time of 
his reenlistment on May 1, 2003, it was issued on April 24, 2003, and was in effect from 
July 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.  
 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was 
not properly counseled regarding his eligibility for a Zone B SRB.  If the applicant had 
been properly counseled, a Page 7 entry would have been made in his record indicating 
that he was eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 2.0 in accordance 
with ALCOAST 329/02.   

3. 

The Board also finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled at 

the time of his May 1, 2003, reenlistment, he would have had the following options: 
 
 

Reenlist  as  he  did  for  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2.0  under  ALCOAST 
329/02; 

a. 

 
 

b. 

c. 

Be discharged from the Coast Guard. 

Extend  his  enlistment  for  two  years,  which  is  the  minimum  voluntary 
extension allowed under Article 1.G.15.a. of the Personnel Manual, and at 
the termination of said extension, reenlist for three, four, five, or six years 
for an SRB with a multiple of 2.5 under ALCOAST 306/04; or  

 
 
 
 
Therefore,  the  applicant  should  be  properly  counseled  about  each  of  these 
options,  and  he  should  be  permitted,  at  his  discretion,  to  (1)  retain  his  current 
reenlistment  contract  and  SRB;  (2)  void  the  reenlistment  contract,  extend  his  prior 
enlistment for two years, and then reenlist for an SRB under ALCOAST 306/04; or (3) 
be expeditiously discharged, in which case the reenlistment contract shall be void and 
an extension contract shall be created to cover his service from May 3, 2003, until his 
date of discharge from the Coast Guard. 
 
 
6. 
above.   
 
 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  in  accordance  with  the  findings 

ORDER 

The military record of                                           shall be corrected as follows.  At 

elect to retain the status quo with no correction of his record and keep the 
SRB already paid to him; 

have  his  reenlistment  contract  dated  May  1,  2003,  voided  and  replaced 
with a two-year extension contract, at the termination of which he shall be 
allowed  to  reenlist  for  three,  four,  five, or  six  years,  at  his  discretion,  to 
receive an SRB under ALCOAST 306/04; or 

have  his  reenlistment  contract  voided  and  be  expeditiously  discharged 
from  the  Coast  Guard.  If  he  chooses  this  option,  an  extension  contract 
shall  be  created  to  cover  his  service  from  May  3,  2003,  until  his  date  of 
discharge,  and  the  Coast  Guard  may  recoup  any  SRB  payments  already 
paid to him.  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
  

 
  

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
his discretion, he may 
 
 

(1) 

(2) 

(3)