DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

 
                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-108 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted according to 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 March 8, 2007, 
upon receipt of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 

 
This  final  decision,  dated  October  4,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

In BCMR Docket No. 2006-115, the applicant asked the Board to correct his record to 
show that he reenlisted on his 6th active duty anniversary, March 30, 2005, to receive a Zone B 
selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 pursuant to ALCOAST 306/04.  His record did not contain 
documentation of SRB counseling prior to his 6th anniversary, as required by Article 3.C.11.2. of 
the Personnel Manual, and the applicant had already received a Zone A SRB for reenlisting for 
four years on March 29, 2003.     

 
The applicant also asked the Board to void a six-year extension contract he had signed on 
April 13, 2006, to accept transfer orders to a new unit beginning on June 20, 2006.  In this exten-
sion  contract,  he  acknowledged  receiving  SRB  counseling  and  was  promised  a  Zone  B  SRB 
based  on  72  months  of  newly  obligated  service  and  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2  under 
ALCOAST  332/05.   The  applicant  also  signed  a  Page  7  acknowledging  the  same  counseling.  
The applicant apparently believed that he would have been entitled to a bigger Zone B SRB if he 
had been counseled about his opportunity to reenlist on his 6th anniversary, when the multiple 
applicable to SRBs for his rate (BM) was larger. 
                                                 
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  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.”  Those with at least 6 years of service but no more than 10 years 
are in “Zone B.”  Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone.  Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.4.a. 

 
In the advisory opinion for Docket No. 2006-115, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) rec-
ommended that the Board grant the requested relief because of the lack of SRB counseling prior 
to the applicant’s 6th anniversary.  On December 14, 2006, the Board issued the following order: 

 
The military record of [the applicant] shall be corrected to show that he reenlisted for 3, 4, 5, or 6 
years, at his discretion, on his 6th active duty anniversary to receive a Zone B SRB as provided 
under ALCOAST 306/04.  The Coast Guard shall remove his April 13, 2006, extension contract 
from his record as null and void.  The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of this 
correction. 

 

 
 
In February 2007, the JAG notified the Board that after someone “worked the numbers,” 
the applicant found that he would have been better off had he never filed his application because 
he would receive a bigger bonus for the 6-year extension calculated with a multiple of 2 than 
with a 6-year reenlistment calculated with a multiple of 2.5 since his SRB for a 6-year reenlist-
ment had to be reduced by the amount of previously obligated service remaining on his four-year 
contract dated March 29, 2003.  The JAG also stated that the applicant had refused to exercise 
his discretion under the Order by choosing a term of years for the new reenlistment contract. 
 

APPLICANT’S NEW REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

In his new application, the applicant asked the Board to rescind its Order in Docket No. 
2006-115 because if implemented it would put him “in a less advantageous position.”  He stated 
that he filed his first application “based upon incorrect SRB/reenlistment counsel [he] received.” 

 
The applicant also asked the Board to change the term of his April 13, 2006, extension 
from six years to just three months, which was the minimum he needed to accept his transfer 
orders.  He alleged that he extended his enlistment on that date because he was advised that he 
would receive an SRB based on all six years of newly obligated service, but he has since been 
advised that his SRB would be based on only five years of service.2  The applicant submitted a 
copy of the Page 7 that  documented his SRB counseling on March 29, 2006, for the six-year 
extension contract that he signed on April 13, 2006.  Both the Page 7 and the extension contract 
show that he was promised an SRB based on 72 months (six full years) of newly obligated ser-
vice.  The applicant also submitted a copy of his transfer orders dated February 13, 2006, which 
state that to accept them, the applicant needed but one year of obligated service upon reporting to 
his new unit. 

 
The applicant stated that, knowing that his rate (BM) has been authorized an SRB multi-
ple “for at least the past 3 years,” if he had been properly advised, he would have extended his 
enlistment, which was due to end on March 28, 2007, for the minimum required—three months 
—and then canceled that extension by reenlisting for six years on March 29, 2007, for a Zone B 
SRB.   
                                                 
2 The first advice the applicant received was correct in that members who sign extension contracts when they are 
entitled to SRBs receive the SRBs based on all of the months of a new contract since the extension does not become 
operative  until  the  member’s  prior  enlistment  ends,  so  the  SRB  is  not  normally  reduced  by  previously  obligated 
service.  Therefore, the applicant’s six-year extension did entitle him to an SRB based on all 72 months of newly 
obligated service. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 7, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant alternate relief.  The JAG stated 
that after a thorough review of the applicant’s record, he had determined that the most advanta-
geous correction the Board could make would be to rescind its Order in the applicant’s prior case 
and leave in place his six-year extension dated April 13, 2006.  The JAG stated that, contrary to 
the applicant’s belief, the SRB he would receive for the April 13, 2006, extension contract would 
be based on all 72 months of newly obligated service.  SRBs awarded for extension contracts are 
never reduced by previously obligated service since extensions by definition begin at the end of 
the prior enlistment. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 20, 2007, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion and stated that had 

no objection to the alternate relief recommended by the JAG. 
 

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.  

The application was timely. 

 The applicant’s experience is a cautionary tale in just how many mistakes can be 
made with respect to SRB counseling.  First, he was not properly counseled on his 6th anniver-
sary; then, when he extended his enlistment for six years to obligate service for transfer, he was 
erroneously advised that he would have received a bigger SRB had he reenlisted on his 6th anni-
versary;  and  later,  he  was  erroneously  advised  that  his  six-year  extension  would  not  actually 
entitle him to an SRB based on 72 months of newly obligated service. 

The Board granted the requested relief in Docket No. 2006-115 in the belief that it 
was in the applicant’s interest to do so.  The applicant and the Coast Guard have determined that 
the relief requested and granted in that case is not in the applicant’s financial interest.  Because 
SRBs are affected by, inter alia, a member’s basic pay, which depends upon his pay grade and 
years of service; his previously obligated service; authorized SRB multiples; and multiple “kick-
ers”  related  to  a  member’s  competency  codes,  which  are  not  usually  apparent  in  the  records 
received by the Board, applicants should read the SRB regulations very carefully and calculate 
their potential SRBs before filing their applications.  In light of the insufficient counseling that 
the applicant in this case received on several occasions and the apparently detrimental effect that 
implementation of the Board’s Order would have, the Board finds that it would be in the interest 
of justice to rescind its prior Order. 

 

 

 

 
1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 

 

4. 

The  applicant  asked  that  the  term  of  his  April  13,  2006,  extension  contract  be 
changed from six years to three months.  He apparently made this request because he was mis-
counseled that the six-year extension would entitle him to an SRB based on only five years of 
newly obligated service.  However, his six-year extension will in fact entitle him to a Zone B 
SRB based on all 72 months of newly obligated service under the contract, assuming he does not 
leave  active  duty  during  those  72  months.    Because  an  extension  contract  does  not  become 
operative until the member’s prior enlistment ends, a member who signs an extension contract 
when he is entitled to an SRB normally receives the SRB undiminished by any previously obli-
gated service remaining on a prior enlistment.3   

Accordingly, the alternate relief recommended by the Coast Guard and accepted 
by the applicant should be granted in that the Board should rescind its prior Order and leave the 
applicant’s six-year extension contract dated April 13, 2006, unchanged in his record. 

 
5. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

                                                 
3  Personnel  Manual,  Article  3.C.7.    However,  if  the  new  extension  contract  cancels  a  prior,  shorter  extension 
contract, the prior, shorter extension contract might constitute previously obligated service depending upon its term 
and purpose.  Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.5.6.  

ORDER 

 

The  Board’s  Order  in  BCMR  Docket  No.  2006-115  with  respect  to  the  application  of 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record, is rescinded.  The 
Coast Guard shall not implement the Order issued in Docket No. 2006-115.  If the Coast Guard 
has already implemented any part of that Order, it shall remove the 6th anniversary reenlistment 
contract  from  his  record  as  null  and  void  and  reinstate  his April  13,  2006,  six-year  extension 
contract in his record. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount owed under ALCOAST 332/05 as a result of 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
Toby Bishop 

 
 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

        

 

 

 

this Order.