DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2005-069 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 February 25, 2005, 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  November  17,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by replacing his six-
year  reenlistment  contract  with  a  six-year  extension  contract  so  that  he  will  receive  a 
Zone  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)1  calculated  with  72  months  of  newly  obli-
gated service instead of 52 months.  The applicant stated that he was told to reenlist for 
six years to obligate sufficient service for transfer and that his SRB would be calculated 
with  52  months  of  newly  obligated  service.    He  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly 
counseled, he  would  have extended his enlistment for six years to accept the transfer 

                                                 
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.  
 

orders because his SRB would have been calculated with 72 months of newly obligated 
service,  and  not  52  months.    He  further  alleged  that  he  was  told  that  he  could  not 
extend  his  enlistment to  obligate  sufficient  service,  that  he  was  not  given  proper  SRB 
counseling, and did not sign a Page 72 documenting SRB counseling. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on February 24, 1998, for a period of 
four years with an expiration of enlistment (EOE) of February 23, 2002.  He completed 
radarman (RD) “A” school on April 16, 1999.  On July 22, 2000, the applicant, in receipt 
of  transfer  orders  to  Texas,  reenlisted  for  six  years  to  obligate  sufficient  service  and 
became eligible for a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 5.0.  His SRB was calculated with 
52 months of newly obligated service because it was reduced by the number of months 
remaining on his original four-year enlistment.  At the time of his reenlistment, he was 
only required to obligate at least 20 months of additional service to accept his transfer 
orders.  There is no Page 7 in the applicant’s record to indicate that he was counseled 
about the effect his reenlistment would have on his SRB entitlement.  The applicant’s 
six-year reenlistment contract states the following: 
 

MBR IS RE-ENLISTING FOR 06 YEARS AND IS ENTITLED TO ZONE A 
MULT OF 5 IAW ALCOAST 218/00. 
 
MBR ELIGIBLE FOR 52 MONTHS OF SRB BASED ON NEWLY OBLIGATED 
SERVICE. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  June  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  record  does  not  support  the  applicant’s  allegation  of 
error  and  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  applicant  was  misinformed 
about  his  reenlistment  and  the  effect  it  would  have  on  his  SRB.    He  argued  that  the 
applicant should be estopped from claiming that the Coast Guard committed error by 
failing to document SRB counseling with a Page 7 entry because proper counseling was 
provided  on  the  applicant’s  July  22,  2000,  reenlistment  contract.    Citing  the  Board’s 
decision in BCMR Docket No. 1999-031, the JAG argued that the Board has previously 
held that a “signed acknowledgement of SRB counseling on an enlistment contract … is 
adequate legal notice to a member of his SRB eligibility and entitlements.”  Moreover, 

                                                 
2  A  Page  7  (CG-3307,  Administrative  Remarks)  entry  documents  any  counseling  that  is  provided  to  a 
service member during their military career. 
 

the JAG argued, the applicant was of majority age and responsible for his actions when 
he  signed  the  reenlistment  contract,  and  absent  any  fraud  or  duress  the  applicant 
should be bound by his acceptance of the contract.  

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 10, 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.a.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  personnel 
ordered to duty stations inside of the continental United States shall obligate sufficient 
service to complete the full tour.  Article 4.A.5.b. of the Manual provides that a full tour 
of duty ashore in the continental United States is three years for an E-5 in the RD rate. 

 
Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST  7220.33  states  that  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB,  the 

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

Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33 provides that all personnel with 14 years 
or less of active service who reenlist or extend for any period shall be counseled on the 
SRB program and shall sign an Page 7 outlining the effect that particular action has on 
their  SRB  entitlement.    Enclosure  (3)  to  COMDTINST  7220.33  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) 

 
ALCOAST  218/00  was  issued  on  May  19,  2000,  and  was  in  effect  from  July  1, 
 
2000,  through  January  31,  2001.    Under  ALCOAST  218/00,  RD2s  were  eligible  for  an 
SRB calculated with a multiple of 5.0. 

 
Article  1.G.14.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  term  of  enlistment  for 
first term personnel may only be extended for the minimum period required to attend a 
resident or other school, to participate in the Coast Guard Tuition Assistance Program, 
or for duty INCONUS or OUTCONUS.  Commanding Officers are authorized to extend 
these members in order to meet only the minimum service required without referring to 
CFTRR or CGPC. 

 

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.  Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  when  he  reenlisted  on  July  22,  2000,  he  was 
improperly counseled because he was not told that he could sign an extension contract 
in lieu of a reenlistment contract.  There is no Page 7 documenting SRB counseling in 
the applicant’s record as required under COMDTINST 7220.33.  The applicant’s six-year 
reenlistment  contract  indicates  that  he  received  some  SRB  counseling,  but  it  does  not 
contain all of the text required by Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 7220.33.  The contract 
indicates that he was advised that he was reenlisting for six years, he was entitled to a 
Zone A SRB with a multiple of 5.0 in accordance with ALCOAST 218/00, and his SRB 
would be calculated with 52 months of newly obligated service.  However, Enclosure 
(3) to COMDTINST 7220.33 requires that the member also be provided with a copy of 
Enclosure (5) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (series) entitled “SRB Questions and 
Answers.”    The  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  does  not  indicate  whether  he  was 
provided with the required information.   
 

3. 

The  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  when  it  did  not  document 
SRB counseling on a Page 7, because the reenlistment contract does not contain all of the 
language required by COMDTINST 7220.33.  Citing the Board’s decision in Docket No. 
1999-031, the JAG argued that the absence of a Page 7 entry documenting SRB counsel-
ing is harmless in this case because SRB counseling was documented on the applicant’s 
reenlistment  contract.    The  Board  disagrees.    In  Docket  No.  1999-031,  the  Board  held 
that a Page 7 entry documenting SRB counseling was not necessary because the mem-
ber’s extension contract contained the same information as a properly executed Page 7 
entry.    In  this  case,  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  does  not  contain  the  same 
information  as  a  proper  Page  7  entry.    Although  the  reenlistment  contract  contains 
much of the language that would have been included on a Page  7 prepared in accor-
dance with COMDTINST 7220.33, it does not state that the applicant was provided with 
a copy of “SRB Questions and Answers.”  
 

4. 

The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  was  not  eligible  to  extend  his 
enlistment for a term greater than 20 months.  Article 1.G.14.e. of the Personnel Manual 
states that members on their first enlistment may only extend their enlistment for the 
minimum  period  required  when  transferring  to  a  duty  station  within  the  continental 
United  States.    The  applicant  was  on  his  first  enlistment  when  he  received  transfer 

orders to Texas in July 2000.  Pursuant to Article 1.G.14.e., he was not eligible to extend 
his  enlistment  for  more  than  20  months,  because  this  was  the  minimum  number  of 
months he needed to obligate in order to have three years remaining on his enlistment 
when  he  reported  to  his  new  assignment  on  September  20,  2000.    Reenlisting  for  six 
years was the only way for the applicant to obligate sufficient service and maximize his 
SRB. 
 

5. 

Finally,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  waited  nearly  five  years  to 
submit  an  application  for  correction.    The  applicant’s  failure  to  seek  correction  of  his 
record  shortly  after  he  reenlisted  suggests  that  he  was  satisfied  with  his  reenlistment 
and SRB at that time. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

6. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Elizabeth F. Buchanan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
  Darren S. Wall