DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-168 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxx, MK1/E-6 
   

 

 
 

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 July 27, 2007, upon receipt of 
the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff members D. Hale and 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  February  7,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a machinery technician first class (MK1), asked the Board to correct his 
record to show that he is eligible to receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 calculated with 
a multiple of 1.5 for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on July 7, 2005.  He alleged that he 
signed a Page 72 indicating that he was eligible to receive an SRB with a multiple of 1.5, and that 
his  reenlistment  contract  also  indicates  that  he  was  eligible  for  a  1.5  multiple.    He  stated, 
however,  that  the  SRB  he  received  for  signing  the  July  7,  2005,  reenlistment  contract  was 
calculated with a multiple of 1.0.  The applicant alleged that prior to signing the reenlistment 
contract, he contacted his servicing personnel office (SPO) regarding his bonus, and was told that 
he was eligible to reenlist for six years to receive a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.5.  
After receiving a  smaller bonus than he expected, he alleged that he once again contacted his 
                                                 
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, Articles 3.C. and 3.C.4.a. 
2  A  Page  7  (CG-3307,  or  Administrative  Remarks)  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. 
 

SPO  and  was  told  that  he  was  entitled  to  only  a  multiple  of  1.0.    The  applicant  stated  that 
“knowing beforehand that I would only get a multiple of 1.0 may have swayed my decision of 
reenlisting.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On September 19, 1995, the applicant enlisted in the regular Coast Guard for a term of 
four years, through September 18, 1999.  On June 21, 1999, a Page 7 was placed in his record 
documenting  that  he  was  eligible  to  reenlist for an SRB with a multiple of 2.0.  On June 21, 
1999,  he  signed  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract,  through  June  20,  2005,  to  receive  a  Zone  A 
SRB. 

 
On  March  23,  2005,  the  applicant  signed  an  11-month  extension  contract  to  obligate 
service for transfer.  On July 7, 2005, a Page 7 was placed in his record documenting that he was 
eligible to extend or reenlist for up to six years, to receive an SRB with a multiple of 1.5.  On 
July  7,  2005,  he  also  signed  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract,  which  states  that  “MBR  IS 
ELIGIBLE  FOR  SRB  MULTIPLE  OF  1.5.”    The  applicant  was  eligible  to reenlist on July 7, 
2005, because he was within 90 days of his 10th active duty anniversary, September 19, 2005.3 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 6, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended denying the requested relief.  The JAG stated that 
although the record supports the applicant’s allegations that he was improperly counseled that his 
SRB would be calculated with a multiple of 1.5, he was eligible only for an SRB calculated with 
a multiple of 1.0 pursuant to ALCOAST 306/04.  Although the JAG recommended denying the 
requested  relief,  he  suggested  that  the  Board  offer  the  applicant  the  option  of  voiding  the 
reenlistment contract and being expeditiously discharged, or having his record corrected to show 
that  he  was  eligible  for  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1.0.    The  JAG  noted  that  if  the  applicant 
chooses to be discharged, he will be responsible for reimbursing the Coast Guard for any SRB 
payments already received pursuant to his July 7, 2005, reenlistment contract.  
 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  December  6,  2007,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  The Chair did not receive a response.    
 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

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,  MK2s  were  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 1.0.  An MK2 in Zone A was eligible for an SRB calculated with a 
multiple of 1.5. 

                                                 
3 On a member’s 6th and 10th active duty anniversary, the member is eligible to reenlist for either a Zone A or a Zone 
B SRB if one is authorized for his rating and the member has not already received one.  Personnel Manual, Article 
3.C.5.9. 

 
ALCOAST 332/05 was issued on June 24, 2005, and was in effect from August 1, 2005, 
through  June  30,  2006.    Under  ALCOAST  332/05,  MK2s  were  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 0.5. 
 

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 applicable law: 
 

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

The application was timely. 

3. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant  to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.51,  denied  the  request  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  case 
without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 

The applicant’s record contains a Page 7 and a reenlistment contract, both dated 
July 7, 2005, stating that he was eligible to receive an SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.5 for 
signing a six-year reenlistment contract.  This is erroneous.  On July 7, 2005, ALCOAST 306/04 
was in effect and MK2s were eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0.  The 
Board notes that if the applicant had waited to reenlist on his 10th anniversary, September 19, 
2005,  he  would  have  been  eligible  only  for  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  0.5  under  ALCOAST 
332/05.    

The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was 
erroneously promised an SRB with a multiple of 1.5 for signing a six-year reenlistment contract 
on July 7, 2005.  Therefore, the contract is voidable.  When an applicant proves, as the applicant 
does here, that he has received erroneous SRB counseling, the Board’s policy is not to offend the 
regulation  by  fulfilling  the  erroneous  promises,  but  to  return  the  applicant  to  the  position  he 
would have been in had he been properly counseled.   

The Board finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled on July 7, 2005, 
he would have had the following options in lieu of reenlisting for six years for an SRB with a 
multiple of 1.0: 

1. 

 
2. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
(a) 
 
(b)  

  
6. 

 

be discharged on May 20, 2006 (the expiration date of his enlistment); 

reenlist  for  a  term  of  3,  4,  or  5  years,  instead  of  6  years,  for  an  SRB  with  a 
multiple of 1.0 under ALCOAST 306/04. 

Accordingly, the relief requested by the applicant should be denied, but the Coast 
Guard  should  counsel  the  applicant  in  accordance  with  the  findings  above  and  allow  him  to 
maintain the status quo or to choose one of the options that would have been available to him on 
July  7,  2005.    The  Board notes that if the applicant elects to be expeditiously discharged, the 
Coast Guard would legally be entitled to recoup from him any unearned SRB payments made 
pursuant to his July 7, 2005, reenlistment contract. 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  MK1  XXXXXXX,  xxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record is denied, except that within 90 days of the date of this decision, the Coast Guard shall 
provide  him  with  proper  SRB  counseling  concerning  his  options  under  this  order,  and  at  his 
discretion, he shall be allowed to choose from one of the following: 

maintain  his  six-year  July  7,  2005,  contract  with  the  SRB  calculated  with  a 
multiple of 1.0 under ALCOAST 306/04; 
 
be expeditiously discharged, in which case the July 7, 2005, reenlistment contract 
shall  be  null  and  void,  and  an  extension  contract  shall  be  created  to  cover  his 
service from July 7, 2005, to the date of discharge; 

 

(a) 

 
(b) 

(c) 

 

 

reenlist on July 7, 2005, for a term of 3, 4, or 5 years, instead of 6 years, for an 
SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0 under ALCOAST 306/04. 
 

 
 
If the applicant makes no election pursuant to this Order, no correction shall be made to 
his  record  and  he  shall  remain  eligible  for  the  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  1.0  under 
ALCOAST 306/04. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 George A. Weller

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier