DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2005-034 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
Xxx xx xxxx, EM1/E-6 
   

 

 
 

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 December 1, 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 August 11, 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 five-
year  extension  contract  dated  April  2,  1999,  and  replacing  it  with  a  seven-month 
extension followed by a six-year reenlistment to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment 
bonus  (SRB)1  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2.0.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was 
counseled that he could cancel the five-year extension contract and reenlist for a larger 
SRB if the multiple for his rank and rate was increased.  He further alleged that if he 

                                                 
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.  
 

had been properly counseled, he would have extended for the seven months needed to 
accept the PCS orders and then canceled the extension and reenlisted for a larger SRB.  

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on February 18, 1992, for a period of 
 
four years with an expiration of enlistment (EOE) of February 17, 1996.  On November 
14, 1995, the applicant reenlisted for three years, with an EOE of  November 13, 1998.  
On  November  12,  1998,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  one  year,  with  an  EOE  of 
November  13,  1999.    On  April  2,  1999,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  five  years  to 
accept  orders  to  an  overseas  assignment  and  became  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 1.0.   At the time of his extension he was only required to 
obligate seven months of additional service.  There is no CG-3307 (Page 7)2 in the record 
to indicate that he was counseled about the effect his extension would have on his SRB 
entitlement.  The applicant’s five-year extension contract states the following: 
 

SRB ELIGIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

 
I have been provided with a copy [of] “SRB Questions and Answers” based on Comman-
dant Instruction 7220.33 (series).  I have been informed that:  My current Selective Reen-
listment  Bonus  (SRB)  multiple  under  zone    B    is    01    and  is  listed  in  ALDIST 
290/98, which has been made available for review.  I further understand the eligibility 
requirements for Zone A, B, and C SRB’s and that the maximum SRB paid to my current 
pay grade is $  35000 .  My SRB will be computed based on  60   months newly obli-
gated service.  

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  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. 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  April  11,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.   
 

The JAG stated that the applicant extended his enlistment for five years to meet 
his obligated service requirement and to receive an SRB calculated with 60 months of 
obligated  service.    The  JAG  noted  that  the  applicant  was  only  required  to  extend  his 
enlistment  for  seven  months  to  obligate  sufficient  service  for  transfer,  and  that  he 
elected to extend for five years to receive the maximum SRB.  The JAG further argued 
that although the applicant claims that he would have only extended for seven months 
                                                 
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. 

to obligate sufficient service to transfer and reenlisted when the SRB was increased, the 
“Applicant  would  have  had  to  obtain  permission  from  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC) to extend less than two years; approval of such an extension request 
is by no means certain and shouldn’t be presumed by the BCMR, especially in light of 
applicant’s assignment to a ship.” 

 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant’s  signed  extension  contract  contains  an 
acknowledgment  that  “he  had  all  of  his  questions  regarding  his  SRB  eligibility 
answered  and  that  he  fully  understood  the  effect  that  his  extension  had  upon  his 
current  and  future  SRB  entitlements.”    The  JAG  argued  that  there  is  “simply  no 
evidence in the record to reflect that the applicant was misinformed about his extension 
and the effect it would have on his SRB.”  Finally, the JAG stated that the applicant has 
already received full payment for his SRB and that all the applicant has submitted is a 
“highly confusing series of scenarios about what ‘coulda, woulda, shoulda, happened’ 
some  of  which  coincidentally  provide  him  with  additional  money  for  no  additional 
obligated service.”  

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 13, 2005, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 

 
 
applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  A response was not received.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW  

 
Article  4.B.6.b.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  all  personnel 
ordered  to  duty  stations  outside  of  the  continental  United  States  shall  obligate  to 
complete the full tour. 

 
Article 3.C.4.b. of the Personnel Manual states that to receive a Zone B SRB, the 

member must reenlist or extend his enlistment for a period of at least three years.  
 

Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual requires 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 and shall sign a Page 7 outlining the effect that particular action has on 
their SRB entitlement.  Article 3.C.11. of the Personnel Manual contains the text of the 
Page 7 members must sign following SRB counseling:  
 

I have been provided with a copy of enclosure (5) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 
(series) entitled “SRB Questions and Answers.” I have been informed that:   
 
My current Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) multiple is ____ and is listed in ALDIST 
_________, which has been made available for my review. 
 
In accordance with article 12-B-4, CG Personnel Manual, I am eligible to reenlist/extend 
my enlistment for a maximum of ____ years. 

 
My SRB will be computed based on ____ months newly obligated service. 
 
The following SRB policies were unclear to me, but my SRB counselor provided me with 
the corresponding answers:  (list specifics) 

 
 
ALDIST  290/98  was  issued  on  November  25,  1998,  and  was  in  effect  from 
November 25, 1998, through June 14, 1999.  Under ALDIST 290/98, EM2s were eligible 
for an SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0. 
 
 
ALDIST  184/99  was  issued  on  May  13,  1999,  and  was  in  effect  from  June  15, 
1999,  through  December  31,  1999.    Under  ALDIST  184/99,  EM2s  were  eligible  for  an 
SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0. 
 

ALCOAST  184/99  was  issued  on  November  22,  1999,  and  was  in  effect  from 
January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2000.  Under ALCOAST 184/99, EM2s were eligible 
for an SRB calculated with a multiple of 2.0. 

 
Article 3.C.5.6. of the Personnel Manual states that extensions may be canceled 
prior  to  their  operative  dates  for  the  purpose  of  extending  or  reenlisting  for  a  longer 
term  to  earn  an  SRB.    However,  such  extensions  reduce  the  SRB  by  the  number  of 
months of previously obligated service unless the extension is for a period of two years 
or less, in which case the SRB is not diminished.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

 
 
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: 
 
 
The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 
§ 1552.   The application was timely.  Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he was improperly counseled.  There is no Page 
7 documenting SRB counseling in his military record, as required under Article 3.C.3. of 
the Personnel Manual.  However, the applicant’s 60-month extension contract indicates 
that he did receive accurate SRB counseling on April 2, 1999.  The contract indicates that 
he was advised he was eligible to extend or reenlist for a Zone B SRB calculated with a 
multiple of 1.0 under ALDIST 290/98.  Moreover, it contains almost identical language 
to that which appears on a Page 7 prepared in accordance with Article 3.C.3.  Therefore, 
the lack of a Page 7 does not persuade the Board that the applicant was miscounseled.  

2. 

 
3. 

The  applicant  also  argued  that  it  was  his  original  goal  to  extend  his 
enlistment  for  the  minimum  amount  needed  to  accept  his  transfer  orders  with  the 

“intention of reenlisting when the new SRB message was released, because I heard that 
the EM multiple was going to increase.”  The Board is reluctant to accept this allegation 
as fact.  There was an SRB multiple of 1.0 in effect for his rating on April 2, 1999, which 
he could earn only by extending his enlistment for at least three years.  There was no 
guarantee in April 1999 that there would be any SRB at all in effect for his rating at a 
later  date.    The  Board  notes  that  the  multiple  for  EM2s  remained  1  under  the  next 
authorization,  ALCOAST  184/99.    Therefore,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the 
applicant would have forgone the SRB available to him under ALDIST 290/98 on the 
chance that there might be a better SRB available in the future.  Finally, the applicant’s 
failure  to  seek  correction  of  his  record  when  the  SRB  multiple  was  increased  in 
November 1999 suggests that he did not have a complaint at the time. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

4. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

ORDER 

The application of EM3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, xxx xx xxxx,USCG, for correction 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Joseph L. Brinkley 

 

 

 
 James G. Parks 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton