DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2005-130 
 
XXXX XXXXXX. 
Xxx xx xxxx, BM2 
   

 

 
 

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.  The Chair was docketed the case on June 29, 
2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  5,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a boatswain’s mate second class (BM2), asked the Board to correct 
the term of an extension contract that he signed on July 23, 2003, from 25 months to 24 
months.    This  correction  would  allow  him  to  cancel  that  extension  contract  before  its 
operative date and reenlist for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 based on six years 
of newly obligated service.2  
                                                 
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. 
2 Obligated service refers to all periods of military service covered by signed agreements in the form of 
enlistment  contracts,  reenlistment  contracts  and/or  agreements  to  extend  enlistment  between  Coast 
Guard members and the U.S. Coast Guard where members agree to serve for designated periods of time. 
Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.2.  

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  reported  to  his  new  unit,  Aids  To  Navigation 
(ANT) Astoria, on July 1, 2003, and was told shortly thereafter that he was required to 
sign  an  extension  contract  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  complete  a  four-year  tour.  
The  applicant  signed  a  25-month  extension  contract  on  July  23,  2003,  to  obligate 
sufficient  service  to  complete  the  four-year  tour.    He  further  alleged  that  when  he 
attempted to cancel the contract and reenlist for an SRB on June 21, 2005, he learned that 
his SRB would be reduced by the number of months previously obligated by the July 
2003  extension,  because  only  extensions  of  two  years  or  less  can  be  canceled  without 
negatively  affecting  SRB  entitlement.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  improperly 
counseled that he had to extend his enlistment for 25 months to satisfy obligated service 
requirements, when in fact he was only required to extend his enlistment for 24 months. 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  June  25,  2001,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of  four 
years,  through  June  24,  2005.    In  the  summer  of  2003,  the  applicant  received  transfer 
orders to Astoria where a full tour of duty was four years.  The applicant accepted the 
transfer orders and was transferred to Astoria on July 1, 2003, without sufficient service 
remaining on his enlistment to complete a four-year tour.   
 

On  July  23,  2003,  approximately  three  weeks  after  arriving  at  Astoria,  the 
applicant signed a 25-month extension contract to obligate sufficient service to complete 
the four-year tour.  The contract extended his enlistment from June 25, 2005, through 
July 24, 2007.  There is no page 73 in his record documenting SRB counseling when he 
signed  the  contract.    However,  the  extension  contract  itself  contains  two  paragraphs 
regarding the applicant’s SRB eligibility (he was then ineligible) and SRB entitlement.  
By signing this contract, the applicant acknowledged having (1) received a copy of “SRB 
Questions and Answers” based on the Commandant’s SRB Instruction; (2) understood 
the effect of his extension on his future SRB eligibility; (3) had the opportunity to read 
the SRB Instruction; and (4) had all his questions about his SRB entitlement answered. 
 
 
On  June  13,  2005,  the  applicant  signed  a  page  7  that  advised  him  that  he  was 
eligible  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  and  that  it  would  be  computed  based  on  47  months  of 
newly obligated service.  
 

On  June  21,  2005,  the  applicant  canceled  his  25-month  extension  contract,  
reenlisted for six years, and became eligible for an SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 306/04.  
Under  Article  3.C.5.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant’s  July  2003  extension 
reduced the amount of additional obligated service for which he could be credited upon 
his reenlistment from 72 months to 47 months. 

                                                 
3 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  November  15,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General (JAG) of the Coast Guard 
 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  granting  relief.    He  stated 
that the applicant was improperly counseled on obligated service requirements and that 
pursuant to Chapter 1.G.16.b. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, 24 months was the 
maximum  number  of  months  for  which  he  could  extend  because  he  was  on  his  first 
term with the Coast Guard and only needed 24 months to complete his next tour. 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 17, 2005, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the JAG’s advisory 
opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond.    On  November  22,  2005,  the  Board  received  the 
applicant’s response in which he agreed with the JAG’s recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 

Article  1.G.16.b.  of  the  Coast  Guard  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 schools or for duty inside or outside CONUS. 

 
Article  4.B.6.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  Assignment  Officers  will 
normally not transfer service members E-4 and above with fewer than six years of active 
duty unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service for a full tour upon 
reporting to a new unit. 

 
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.  

 
ALCOAST 306/04 was issued on June 21, 2004, and was in effect from August 1, 
2004, through July 31, 2005.  Under ALCOAST 306/04, BM2s were eligible for an SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 2.0. 
 

 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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

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

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

 
4. 

 
5. 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  erroneously  required  to  extend  his 
enlistment  for  25  months to obligate sufficient service to complete a four-year tour at 
ANT Astoria.  When he received transfer orders in June 2003, the applicant should have 
been required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty (four years) 
before accepting the orders.4   Since his report date was July 1, 2003, he was required, by 
or  before  that  date,  to  have  obligated  service  through  June  30,  2007.    However,  the 
applicant’s  command  did  not  require  him  to  obligate  service  before  allowing  him  to 
transfer to his new unit.  Upon arrival on July 1, 2003, the applicant’s end of enlistment 
(EOE) date was June 24, 2005, and since Astoria is a four-year tour, he should have been 
required  to  obligate  service  through  July  24,  2007  (25  months).5    The  applicant’s  and 
JAG’s  allegations  that  he  needed  only  a  24-month  extension  to  obligate  service  for  a  
complete 4-year tour is clearly wrong. 
 

3. 

If the applicant had been properly counseled in June 2003, he would have 
been  told  that,  under  Article  4.B.6.a.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  before  accepting  his 
transfer  orders  and  reporting  to  his  new  unit  on  July  1,  2003,  he  had  to  obligate 
sufficient service  — 25 more months — to complete a full four-year tour.  In addition, 
he should have been advised that because the extension contract he would have to sign 
to  accept  the  tour  at  Astoria  was  for  more  than  two  years’  duration,  under  Article 
3.C.5.6 of Personnel Manual, he could not cancel it before it became operative to receive 
an SRB without having his SRB reduced by his remaining obligated service.   

However,  when  the  applicant  signed  the  extension  contract  on  July  23, 
2003,  there  was  no  longer  authority  under  the  Personnel  Manual  for  him  to  sign  the 
contract:  he  had  already  completed  the  transfer  to  Astoria,  he  was  not  in  receipt  of 
orders to transfer again or to attend school, and he was not within 90 days of his EOE 
date.  By July 23, 2003, the Government had already incurred the costs of the applicant’s 
transfer without requiring, as surety, his agreement to serve a full tour at his new unit.  
Although the applicant should have been required to obligate service prior to accepting 
his transfer orders, he was not required to correct the Coast Guard’s error by extending 
his enlistment nearly one month after he was transferred to Astoria. 

In light of the fact that the applicant had already been transferred and was 
not authorized to sign an extension contract on July 23, 2003, the Board finds that his 
July 23, 2003, extension contract should be null and void.  This correction will maximize 
the SRB he is owed for his June 21, 2005, reenlistment.  
 
 
                                                 
4 Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6. 
5 Coast Guard personnel may extend their enlistments for any number of full years and/or full months up 
to six years for INCONUS assignments.  Personnel Manual, Article 1.G.15.a. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

6. 

 
 
 

ORDER 

 

 

The application of BM2 XXXXX XXXXXX, xxx xx xxxx, USCG, for correction of 
his  military  record  is  granted.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  remove  the  July  23,  2003, 
extension  contract  from  his  records  as  null  and void (as opposed to merely canceling 
the contract) and pay him any amount due for his June 21, 2005, reenlistment pursuant 
to ALCOAST 306/04 as a result of this correction.  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Frank H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus