DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-100 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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  docketed  the  case  on  February 23, 2007, upon 
receipt of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the 
decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 15, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, who was released from active duty (RELAD) as an EM2/E-5 on July 21, 
2006,  asked  the  Board  to  backdate  the  date  of  his  reenlistment  from  November  21,  2006,  to 
October 21, 2006, so that he will be entitled to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1  The appli-
cant stated that sometime after his RELAD, he realized “how good the Coast Guard life is” and 
so “attempted to reenlist well within the 90-day period that would allow me to receive a Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus.”  Although his recruiter promptly submitted a fast-track application, he was 
not reenlisted within three months of his RELAD and so did not receive an SRB. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he went to the recruiting office on November 21, 2006, hoping 
to reenlist for six years for an SRB.  But when he was told that he was not eligible for the SRB, 
he reenlisted for just three years so that he might receive an SRB in the future.  The applicant 
stated that if he had reenlisted for six years within three months days of his discharge, he would 
have received an SRB of $31,872. 
 

                                                 
1 Article 1.G.8.a.1. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]o receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB), a member 
must  reenlist  within  three  months  from  date  of  discharge  and  meet  the  eligibility  requirements  …  .”    Article 
3.C.4.a.1.  states  that  a  criterion  for  SRB  eligibility  is  that members must “[r]eenlist not later than 3 months after 
discharge or release from active duty in a rating authorized an SRB multiple.” 

 
In support of his request, the applicant submitted copies of his telephone bills and emails 
reflecting  the  following  communications  between  himself,  Coast  Guard  recruiters,  and  the 
assignment detailer for the EM rating: 
 

•  On September 27, 2006, the applicant emailed a chief petty officer in the Coast Guard 
Recruiting Command (CGRC), asking “about OCS [Officer Candidate School] possibilities for 
[him]self.”  He noted that he would be receiving his bachelor’s degree in one week and stated, 
“What are the possibilities for commissioning?  What are some of the career paths available?  I 
have also been looking into commissioning programs through the Army and would like to com-
pare and contrast my options.” 

•  On October 3 and 4, 2006, the applicant made six calls to his local recruiting office, 

each of one or two minutes’ duration. 

•  On Friday, October 20, 2006, the applicant called the EM detailer in Washington, DC.  
The applicant alleged that during this call, the detailer told him that he had “had [the applicant’s] 
fast-track application for some time, but thought he was waiting on the recruiter.”  Therefore, the 
applicant called his recruiter to tell him what the detailer had said. 

•  In the last week of October and the first three weeks of November 2006, the applicant 
made numerous telephone calls to his recruiter, the recruiting office, and his proposed new com-
mand. 

•  On October 4, 2006, a recruiter responded to the applicant’s email to the chief petty 
officer.  He stated that the next OCS deadline was February 2, 2007, and directed him to the on-
line instructions for applying to OCS.  The recruiter told the applicant to contact him as soon as 
he got his OCS application package collected.  The recruiter also noted that he would “have to 
get [the applicant] a physical and a board.  Will need time and it has to be done prior to the FEB 
deadline.” 

•  On October 9 and 10, 2006, the applicant called the recruiting office three times.   
•  On October 10, 2006, the applicant sent an email to a recruiter noting that they had 
spoken on the telephone earlier that day about the possibility of the applicant “reenlisting versus 
OCS. … You stated that you spoke with the EM detailer, and that the EM rating is hurting for 
people and I would be able to keep my E-5 rating.”  The applicant stated that he wanted “more 
information  on  reenlisting”;  indicated  his  preferred  geographical  locations;  asked  if  he  could 
“lock  in”  a  billet  if  he  reenlisted;  stated  that  he  “strongly  desire[d]  the  EM  SRB”  and  would 
“really  love  an  SRB”;  asked  if  he  could  get  educational  benefits;  and  asked  about  the  “time-
frame for reenlisting.” 

•  On October 11, 2006, the applicant spoke to his recruiter on the telephone and, at 7:37 
p.m., sent him an email with a copy of his DD 214, a specific list of preferred billets, and a ques-
tion about whether he could sign up for educational benefits. 

•  On Thursday, October 12, 2006, at 8:38 a.m., the applicant’s recruiter emailed to a 
chief petty officer at CRGC a fast-track application for the applicant’s reenlistment along with 
his request for an SRB and an inquiry as to whether the applicant could sign up for educational 
benefits. 

•  The applicant called the recruiting office twice on Friday, October 13, 2006, and nine 

times the following week.   

•  On November 9, 2006, the EM detailer emailed to the applicant his orders assigning 
him to a cutter.  The applicant replied the same day, thanking the detailer for the orders and for 
the “exceptional customer service.”   

•  On November 15, 2006, a chief yeoman at CGRC responded to a telephone call from 
the applicant’s recruiter about the applicant’s desire for an SRB.  The chief yeoman stated, “I’m 
sure there must be a way to help this member.” 

•  On  November  17,  2006,  the  applicant  emailed  his  recruiter  a  copy  of  his  RELAD 
physical examination.  He noted that although he was RELAD a few months after undergoing 
foot surgery, he was in great physical shape and had received an RE-1 reenlistment code. 

•  On  November  19,  2006,  the  applicant  emailed  his  recruiter  about  his  physical 

measurements and uniform sizes. 
 

The application was timely. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY RECORDS 

 
On  July  22,  2002,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years.    He  was 
released from active duty into the Reserve on July 21, 2006, as an EM2/E-5.  If he had reenlisted 
prior  to  July  1,  2006,  he would have been entitled to an SRB calculated with a multiple of 3 
under ALCOAST 332/05.  On July 1, 2006, ALCOAST 283/06 went into effect, lowering the 
SRB multiple for EM2 SRBs to 2.5. 

 
On November 21, 2006, the applicant reenlisted for three years.  At the time, ALCOAST 
283/06 was still in effect with an authorized SRB multiple of 2.5 for EM2s.  The applicant was 
not promised an SRB in the documentation for this reenlistment because he reenlisted more than 
three months after separation.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 19, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  He stated that the applicant’s reenlistment contract is 
valid and that he knew at the time he signed it he would not receive an SRB.  He concluded that 
“[a]lthough the circumstances prior to the reenlistment are unfortunate, the applicant still made 
the ultimate decision to reenlist on 21 November 2006.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received. 
 

On July 25, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the JAG’s advisory opinion and 

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 applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

1. 

2. 

Because the applicant was RELAD on July 21, 2006, he needed to reenlist within 
three  months,  or  by  Saturday,  October  21,  2006,  to  be  eligible  for  an  SRB  under  Articles 
1.G.8.a.1. and 3.C.4.a.1. of the Personnel Manual.  The record shows that less than one month 
before that date, on September 27, 2006, the applicant inquired about applying for OCS.  Follow-
ing several communications, the applicant apparently informed a recruiter on Wednesday, Octo-
ber 11, 2006, that he was interested in reenlisting and, that evening, emailed him his DD 214 and 
other necessary information.  The recruiter submitted a “fast-track” reenlistment application on 
the  applicant’s  behalf,  with  a  request  for  an  SRB,  early  the  next  morning,  October  12,  2006.  
However, the applicant was not reenlisted by October 21, 2006, and so was not entitled to an 
SRB  when  he  reenlisted.    He  therefore  minimized  the  term  of  his  reenlistment  contract  to 
maximize any SRB for which he might become eligible in the future.  Although the applicant 
reenlisted on November 21, 2006, knowing that he was no longer eligible for an SRB, he argued 
that his ineligibility was unjust because, after his application was submitted on October 12th, he 
should  have  been  reenlisted  by  October  21st,  but  his  reenlistment  was  unnecessarily  delayed 
because of an administrative error.  
 
 
To prevail on his claim for the SRB, the applicant would have to prove that the 
Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  not  reenlisting  him  on  or  before  October  21, 
2006, approximately ten days after his recruiter submitted his fast-track application.  The appli-
cant pointed to no policy or regulation that entitled him to reenlist within ten days of submitting a 
fast-track application, and the Board knows of none.  Nor is the Board aware of any policy or 
regulation stating that fast-track applications should normally be processed and lead to reenlist-
ment within ten days.  The applicant has not shown that his recruiters or the EM detailer failed to 
act “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith” in executing their duties.2  He has not proved that 
anyone  at  CGRC  or  the  EM  detailer  unreasonably  or  maliciously  delayed  processing  his  fast-
track application between October 12 and 21, 2006. 
 
 
Moreover, the applicant’s requested relief—backdating his date of enlistment by a 
full month—would be inappropriate as it would award him a full month of active duty credit and 
pay and allowances which he did not actually earn. 
 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
2 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger