DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2004-156 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 29, 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 March 31, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  an  operations  specialist  second  class  (OS2),  asked  the  Board  to 
correct  his  military  record  to  make  him  entitled  to  a  Zone  A  selective  reenlistment 
bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 2.1  He alleged that, prior to being transferred 
to his current station on July 7, 2003, he was not properly counseled about his eligibility 
for an SRB when he signed a six-year extension contract on May 8, 2003, for an SRB cal-
culated with a multiple of 1.  He noted that his prior command never documented SRB 
counseling  in  his  record  with  a  form  CG-3307  (“page  7”).    He  also  noted  that  before 
reporting  to  his new station on July 7, 2003, he advanced to pay grade E-5 on July 1, 
2003, and the multiple used to calculate SRBs for members of his rating in pay grade E-5 
was 2, instead of 1. 
 

                                                 
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.”  Members may not 
receive more than one SRB per zone.  Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.4.a. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On December 7, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years, through December 6, 2003.  In May 2003, while stationed aboard a cutter home-
ported  in  Alameda,  California,  and  while  still  a  telecommunications  specialist  third 
class  (TC3/E-4),  the  applicant  received  orders  to  transfer  to  a  shore  unit  in  Seattle, 
Washington,  on  July  7,  2003.    In  accordance  with  Article  4.B.6.a.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, his orders stated that to accept the transfer orders, he was required to obligate 
sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty at the new unit.  Under Article 4.A.5., a 
full tour of duty was four years.  Therefore, to accept the transfer orders, the applicant 
was  required  to  extend  his  service  from  December  7,  2003,  through  July  6,  2007  (43 
months), before reporting to his new unit. 

 
In May 2003, ALCOAST 329/02 was in effect, and it authorized an SRB multiple 
of 1 for members, such as the applicant, in rating/grade TC3/E-4 and a multiple of 2 for 
those  who  had  already  advanced  to  rating/grade  TC2/E-5.    On  April  24,  2003, 
ALCOAST  182/03  was  issued.    It  went  into  effect  on  July  1,  2003,  and  authorized  an 
SRB multiple of 1 for members who were OS1/E-4 and a multiple of 2 for OS2/E-5.  (As 
of July 1, 2003, the Coast Guard discontined the TC rating, and the applicant and other 
TCs were transferred to the OS rating.) 

 
On  May  8,  2003,  the  applicant  extended  his  enlistment  for  six  years—from 
December 7, 2003, through December 6, 2009—to obligate sufficient service to accept his 
transfer orders and to receive an SRB calculated with a multiple of 1, which was then 
authorized under ALCOAST 329/02.  The applicant’s record does not contain a page 7 
documenting SRB counseling at the time he signed the extension contract.2  However, 
the extension contract itself shows that he was promised an SRB calculated with a mul-
tiple of 1 based on 72 months (6 years) of newly obligated service.  Language in the con-
tract also indicates that the applicant acknowledged having been counseled about the 
effect of his extension on his current and future SRB eligibility. 

 
On July 1, 2003, the applicant advanced from pay grade E-4 (TC3) to E-5 (OS2).  

On July 7, 2003, he reported to his new unit.   

 
The Coast Guard’s database also shows that on December 1, 2003, the applicant 
was  allowed  to  reenlist  for  six  years,  through  November  30,  2009,  with  the  goal  of 
receiving  the  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2  under  ALCOAST  182/03.  
Although no copy of this contract appears in the applicant’s record, the record contains 
a print out of the Coast Guard’s database showing this reenlistment, as well as an email 
conversation dated January 30, 2004, about why the applicant did not receive the SRB as 
                                                 
2 Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual provides that “[a]ll personnel with 10 years or less 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-3307 (page 7) service record entry outlining the effect that particular 
action has on their SRB entitlement.” 

a result of the reenlistment.  The reenlistment contract violated Article 1.G.20.2.b. of the 
Personnel Manual, which provides that a member may only cancel an extension agree-
ment by reenlisting if the reenlistment obligates more service than was obligated under 
the  extension  contract.    Since  the  applicant’s  extension  contract  would  run  through 
December  6,  2009,  he  could  not  cancel  it  by  reenlisting  for  six  years  on  December  1, 
2003.    In  addition,  the  reenlistment  contract  was  erroneous  under  Article  3.C.4.a. 
because the member had already signed one contract for a Zone A bonus, and members 
may only receive one bonus per zone.  However, the Coast Guard apparently did cancel 
the extension contract and enter the new reenlistment contract in his record.  The Coast 
Guard did not, however, pay the member any SRB.  Under the regulations, he was not 
entitled to an SRB as a result of the extension contract because it was canceled, and he 
was not entitled to an SRB as a result of the reenlistment contract because it did not cre-
ate any newly obligated service, since the full six-year term of the reenlistment contract 
had already been obligated by the extension contract.3 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  November  4,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 

 
 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request but grant alternative relief. 
 
 
The JAG argued that the terms of the applicant’s May 8, 2003, extension contract 
prove that he was correctly counseled about his eligibility for a Zone A SRB when he 
signed it.  Moreover, to accept his transfer orders, the applicant was required to obligate 
at least 43 more months of service, through July 6, 2007.  Therefore, he had to sign an 
extension  contract of more than two years’ duration, and such extensions continue to 
count as previously obligated service even when they are canceled. 
 
The  JAG  admitted,  however,  that  the  applicant  was  improperly  advised  on 
 
December 1, 2003, when he was apparently told that he could get an SRB with a mul-
tiple of 2 by reenlisting for six years.  Instead, the reenlistment contract merely voided 
his  SRB  entitlement  under  the  extension  contract.    Therefore,  the  JAG  recommended 
that  the  Board  grant  alternative  relief  by  voiding  the  December  1,  2003,  reenlistment 
contract  and  reinstating  the  May 8, 2003, extension contract so that the applicant will 
receive the Zone A SRB he was originally promised. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

                                                 
3 Under Articles 3.C.5.6. and 3.C.7. of the Personnel Manual, only the months of service that are newly 
obligated by an extension or reenlistment contract count in the calculation of SRB payments.  Although 
extension  contracts  may  be  canceled  prior  to  their  operative  dates  if  the  member  reenlists  for  a  longer 
period,  under  Articles  3.C.5.6.  and  3.C.7.,  the  term  of  a  canceled  extension  will  continue  to  count  as 
previously  obligated  service  and  diminish  the  size  of  any  SRB  the  member  might  receive  for  the 
reenlistment,  unless  the  extension  was  for  a  term  of  two  years  or  less  and  was  executed  to  fulfill  an 
obligated service requirement for transfer or training. 

 
On  December  7,  2004,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response.    He  stated 
that  he  had  no  objection  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  views  but  asked  whether  the 
recommended  correction would entitle him to an SRB based on the E-4 pay grade he 
held on May 8, 2003, or the E-5 pay grade, which he advanced to on July 1, 2003, before 
reporting to his new unit. 
 

 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. 
 

 
3. 

 
4. 

2. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was 
erroneously  counseled  on  December  1,  2003,  when  he  was  allowed  to  reenlist  for  six 
years.  The reenlistment violated Article 1.G.20.2.b. because it purported to cancel the 
applicant’s  May  8,  2003,  extension  contract  even  though  the  extension  contract  obli-
gated  the  applicant  to  a  longer  period  of  service  than  the  reenlistment  contract.    The 
reenlistment  contract  was  also  erroneous  and  unjust  in  that  it  voided  the  applicant’s 
entitlement  to  a  SRB  under  the  extension  contract,  pursuant  to  Articles  3.C.5.6.  and 
3.C.7. of the Personnel Manual.  Therefore,  the applicant is entitled to have this reenlist-
ment contract removed from his record. 

The applicant alleged that he was miscounseled when he signed the May 
8, 2003, extension contract and pointed out that no page 7 was prepared when he signed 
it, as required by Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual.  However, the extension con-
tract  itself  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  properly  counseled.    He  would  have been 
entitled to a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 1 based on 72 months of newly obligated 
service under the contract.  The applicant did not allege that the command of his cutter 
erroneously led him to believe that he could cancel the six-year extension without nega-
tive consequences for his SRB after he advanced to E-5, and there is no evidence in the 
record that such miscounseling was provided in May 2003 when he signed the exten-
sion contract. 

The  record  indicates  that  in  May  2003,  the  applicant  was  correctly 
informed  that  he  had  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  complete  a  full  tour  of  duty  to 
accept  his  transfer  orders  off  the  cutter  to  a  shore  unit.    If  the  applicant  could  have 
waited until July 2, 2003, to obligate the service, he would have been entitled to an SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 2 as an E-5.4  Although the applicant did not have to report 

                                                 
4 Under Article 3.C.7.1. of the Personnel Manual, SRBs are calculated based on the member’s basic pay 
rate the day before the contract is signed.  Because the applicant was advanced to E-5 on July 1, 2003, he 

to  his  new  unit  until  July  7,  2003,  he  has  not  proved  that  both  his  command  and  the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command would have allowed him to wait until July 2, 2003—
just 5 days before his report date—to commit to the transfer by fulfilling the obligated 
service  requirement.    In  fact,  the  record  shows  that  his  command  required  him  to 
obligate service on May 8, 2003—two months before the report date—though presuma-
bly the fact that he might be promoted before July 7, 2003, was known. 

Accordingly, the alternative relief that was proposed by the JAG and that 
the applicant accepted should be granted.  The applicant’s December 1, 2003, reenlist-
ment contract should be removed from his record.  The May 8, 2003, extension contract 
should be reinstated, and he should receive the SRB calculated with a multiple of 1 that 
he was promised for that extension in accordance with ALCOAST 329/02.  Under Arti-
cle 3.C.7.1. of the Personnel Manual, the SRB will be calculated based on the applicant’s 
basic pay rate (E-5) on December 6, 2003, which is the day before the extension is to be 
operative.  

 
5. 

 

 
 

                                                                                                                                                             
could  not  have  earned  a  multiple  of  2  as  an  OS2/E-5 unless he waited until July 2, 2003, to extend his 
enlistment. 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

military record is granted as follows: 

 
His December 1, 2003, six-year reenlistment contract shall be removed from his 
record  as  null  and  void.    His  May  8,  2003,  six-year  extension  contract  shall  not  be 
canceled but shall be reinstated and deemed to have become operative on December 7, 
2003.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  the  amount  due  under  ALCOAST 
329/02 as a result of this correction. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan