DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-036 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxxx, IT1 
   

 

 
 

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 December 7, 
2007, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).         
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated August  14,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct his military record to make him entitled to a 
Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 with a multiple of 2 instead of the 0.5 multiple he 
actually received.  He alleged that he was promised the SRB with a multiple of 2 on his on April 
9,  2007  enlistment  extension  agreement,  in  which  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  41  months.    
However, the Coast Guard refused to pay the multiple of 2 and told the applicant he was only 
entitled  to  a  multiple  of  0.5  under  the  pertinent  ALCOAST  in  effect  at  that  time.    In  the 
alternative, the applicant requested that the extension be cancelled.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  properly  counseled  at  the  time  he  executed  the 
extension agreement because he was told that he could cancel the extension prior to its operative 
date and reenlist for a longer period and still received an SRB without any of the extended period 
being  deducted  for  previously  obligated  service.  (Normally,  SRBs  are  granted  only  for  newly 
obligated  service.)    The  applicant  further  alleged  that  he  was  never  counseled  on  an 

                                                 
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 6 or fewer years of active duty 
service are in “Zone A.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. 
 

administrative  remarks  page  (Page  7)  about  his  SRB  eligibility,  as  required  by  the  Personnel 
Manual. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On July 29, 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years.  On 
July 28, 2006, the applicant extended his enlistment for eighteen months with an operative date 
of  July  29,  2006,  and  an  end  of  enlistment  date  of  January  28,  2008.   On April 21, 2007, he 
extended his enlistment a second time for a period of 41 months “at the request of the individual” 
with an operative date of January 29, 2008, and an end of enlistment date of June 28, 2011.   The 
April 21, 2007 extension contract shows that the Coast Guard promised the applicant an SRB 
with a multiple of 2 for the 41 months of service newly obligated under the contract.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 23, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that  the  Board  grant  relief  to  the  applicant,  although  the  recommended  relief  was  not  that 
requested  by  the  applicant.    In  this  regard,  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the  extension 
contract be corrected to show that the applicant agreed to extend his enlistment for a period of 4 
years and 6 months (54 months); that the extension was for the purpose of a PCS transfer; and 
that the applicant was entitled to receive a SRB with a multiple of 0.5.   
 
 
The JAG stated that the Coast Guard failed to properly counsel the applicant about his 
SRB entitlement when he extended his enlistment in 2007.  There is no page 7 documenting SRB 
counseling  in  the  applicant’s  military  record,  as  required  by the Personnel Manual.  The JAG 
stated  that  the  absence  of  the  required  counseling  entry  supports  the  applicant’s  allegation  of 
error.  The JAG further stated the following: 
 

Per Coast Guard Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6A, Article 3.C.5.11, 
“Entitlement to SRB multiple and bonus ceiling is established on the actual date 
of  reenlistment  or  the  date  the  member  executes  an  agreement  to  extend 
enlistment  by  signing  Form  CG-3301B.”    On  09  April  2007,  when  applicant 
signed the CG-3301B, ALCOAST 283/06 was in effect and the Zone “A” SRB 
multiple,  listed  for  an  IT2  (E-5)  was  “0.5”. 
  However,  the  eligibility 
acknowledgment  statement  on  the  CG-3301B  incorrectly  contains  [a]  SRB 
multiple  of  “2”.    In  addition,  Article  3.C.5.5.[of  the  Personnel  Manual]  states, 
“Under  no  circumstances  will  an  individual  be  permitted  to  extend  their 
enlistment  more  than  3  months  early  for  SRB  purposes  alone.    However,  a 
member  who  must  extend  for  some  other  reason  (i.e.,  transfer,  training, 
advancement,  or  tuition  assistance)  may  extend  for  a  period  greater  than  the 
minimum required for the purpose of gaining entitlement to an SRB.”  Applicant, 
extended  his  enlistment,  not  for  the  reasons  listed,  but  at  his  request,  nine  .  .  . 
months  early  for  a  SRB.    Therefore,  based  on  the  above  discrepancies,  the 
[enlistment  extension  agreement]  is  an  erroneous  contract  and  is  invalid.    It  is 
believable  that  had  the  applicant  been  properly  counseled  on  9  April  2007,  he 
would have extended his enlistment to obligate service for transfer for fifty four- 

months, since he had a proper extension on 28 July 2006, for eighteen months, to 
gain the Zone A SRB entitlement he qualified for.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On May 23, 2008, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 
Guard.    The  applicant  agreed  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  his  extension  agreement  should  be 
corrected to show that the extension was for the purpose of a PCS transfer to a new duty station.  
However,  he  disagreed  with  the  Coast  Guard’s  other  recommendations  for  correction  of  his 
extension agreement.  Contrary to the Coast Guard’s other recommendations, the applicant stated 
that  he  needed  only  4  years  of  remaining  service  to  accept  the  PCS  orders,  which  he 
accomplished by executing the 41-month extension.  Therefore he suggested that block 7 of the 
extension  agreement  (which  should  show  a  total  of  all  extensions)  be  corrected  to  reflect  his 
earlier 18 month extension plus the 41-month extension for a total of 4 years and eleven months 
(currently block 7 only shows the 41-month extension).  He further suggested that block 10 of the 
extension agreement be corrected to reflect his entitlement to an SRB with a multiple of 1 under 
the  ALCOAST  286/08,  which  became  effective  on  June  15,  2007,  and  that  he  executed  the 
extension agreement on January 28, 2008, rather than on April 9, 2007.  The applicant argued 
that the Coast Guard’s recommendation for relief is not adequate or just because it requires him 
to serve beyond the enlistment expiration date to which he agreed in the extension contract, as 
well as a smaller SRB payment than was promised in the contract.    
 

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  1.G.14.a.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  a  member  may  extend  his 
reenlistment  “[f]or  any  number  of  full  years  and/or  full  months  up  to  six  years  to  ensure 
sufficient obligated service [OBLISERV] for these purposes:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

"a.  Attend a resident school. 
"b.  Participate in the Coast Guard Tuition Program. 
"c.  INCONUS and OUTCONUS assignments; . . . 
"d.  Advance to E-7, E-8, or E-9; . . . 
"e.  Meet an approved retirement date." 

Article 3.C.6. of the Personnel Manual (Change in Multiple) states the following: 

All  Agreements  to  Extend  Enlistments  signed  before  the  effective  date  of  the 
change  will  be  at  the  old  multiple  level.    All  agreements  made  on  or  after  the 
effective date of the change will be at the new level.  Members desiring to extend 
their  enlistments  or  reenlist  early  to  take  advantage  of  a  higher  bonus  multiple 
may do so within the provisions of this chapter and or Articles 1.G.14 and 12.B.7 
[of this instruction].   

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the  

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

 

application was timely. 
 

2.  On its face, the extension agreement shows that on April 9, 2007, the applicant and the 
Coast  Guard  executed  an  agreement  that  required  the  applicant  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  a 
period of 41 months, with an operative date of January 29, 2008, for which he would receive an 
Zone  A  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2  under  ALCOAST  283/06.      The  problem  arose  when  the 
extension became operative on January 29, 2008.  At that time the SRB payment became due, but  
the Coast Guard would only pay a multiple of 0.5 because that was the multiple authorized for 
IT2s  under  ALCOAST  283/06  on  April  9,  2007,  when  the  applicant  executed  the  extension 
agreement.  

 
3.    However,  the  JAG  admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  not 
counseling  the  applicant  about  his  SRB  eligibility  on  a  page  7,  as  required  by  the  Personnel 
Manual.  The JAG also noted that the Coast Guard had committed other errors by marking the 
incorrect reason for the enlistment extension and by erroneously promising the applicant an SRB 
multiple  of  2,  when  it  should  have  promised  him  a  SRB  multiple  of  0.5  under  the  cited 
ALCOAST.  To remedy these errors, the JAG recommended correcting the extension contract to 
show a term of 54 months, without any explanation for the increase from the agreed upon 41 
months.  The Coast Guard also recommended correcting the extension agreement to show “PCS 
transfer” as the reason for the extension.   The Coast Guard further recommended correcting the 
extension agreement to show that the applicant was promised a SRB multiple of 0.5 rather than 
the multiple of 2 that was promised in the original agreement.   

 
4.    The  applicant  objected  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  recommendation  that  his  extension 
contract  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  54  months,  rather  than  41 
months, and that he was promised a multiple of 0.5, rather than a multiple of 2.   In contrast, the 
applicant recommended that the extension period remain unchanged at 41 months and that the 
extension agreement be corrected to show that it was executed on January 28, 2008, rather than 
April 9, 2007, so that he would be entitled to at least a Zone A SRB with a multiple 1 under 
ALCOAST 286/08, which was in effect on January 28, 2008, rather than the SRB with a multiple 
of 0.5 under ALCOAST 283/06.   

 
5.  As the applicant and the Coast Guard are in disagreement on how to best remedy this 
situation, the Board finds the applicant’s suggestion for resolving this matter to be the more fair 
and just solution.  In reaching this conclusion, the Board finds the Coast Guard’s recommended 
corrections,  except  for  amending  the  reason  for  the  extension  to  show  a  PCS  transfer,  would 
constitute  a  further  injustice  to  the  applicant.    It  would  be  unjust  to  increase  the  length  of 
enlistment from 41 to 54 months over the applicant’s objection and without any explanation from 
the Coast Guard why such a recommendation was made.  It would also constitute an injustice, 
and probable error, to amend the extension agreement to show that the applicant was promised an 
SRB multiple of 0.5 in consideration for the 41-month enlistment extension, when clearly he was 
not.   

 
6.  Therefore, the Board should direct that the extension agreement be corrected to show 
that  it  was  executed  on  January  27,  2008,  and  that  it  became  operative  on  January  29,  2008, 

which is the same operative date as the original extension, for a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 1 
under ALCOAST 286/08.  The 41-month extension period should remain unchanged.   
 

7.    In  directing  this  relief,  the  Board  recognizes  the  Coast  Guard’s  reliance  on  Article 
3.C.5.11.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  which  states  that  “Entitlement  to  SRB  multiple  and  bonus 
ceilings is established on the date of reenlistment or the date the member executes as agreement 
to  extend  enlistment  by  signing  [the  Enlistment  Extension  Agreement].”    However,  under  10 
USC  §  1552,  the  BCMR  may  correct  any  military  record  to  correct  an  error  or  remove  an 
injustice,  both  of  which  are  present  in  this  case.    We  do  so  in  this  case  by  correcting  the 
execution date of the extension agreement to a subsequent date that will entitle the applicant to at 
least  one-half  of  the  SRB  multiple  that  he  was  erroneously  promised  on  April  9,  2007.    
Moreover,  the  correction  to  be  ordered  will  comply  with  Article  3.C.5.11.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  because  the  corrected  execution  date  for  the  extension  will  be  January  27,  2008,  two 
days  before  the  extension’s  operative  date  of  January  29,  2008,  and  well  within  the  period 
covered by ALCOAST 286/08, which authorized a multiple of 1 for the applicant’s rating.   

 

 
8.    The  Coast  Guard  suggested  that  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled,  he 
would  have  been  told  that  ALCOAST  283/06 authorized only an SRB multiple of 0.5 for his 
rating and that he would have agreed to extend his enlistment for 54 months.  However, this view 
overlooks and diminishes the fact that the Coast Guard did not provide the applicant with correct 
information about the SRB multiple authorized under the cited ALCOAST and in fact the Coast 
Guard failed completely to counsel him through the use of a page 7, as required by the Personnel 
Manual.  There is no way to know what the applicant would have done had he been properly 
counseled, just as there is no way to know if the errors committed by the Coast Guard would 
have  been  eliminated  if  personnel  had  followed  the  direction  provided  for  counseling  in  the 
Personnel  Manual.    To  be  sure, the Coast  Guard is charged with the responsibility to provide 
proper counseling to its members about SRBs and in this case it failed to do so. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the relief discussed above and directed below. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

record is granted as follows:   

 
His 41-month extension contract dated April 9, 2007, shall be corrected to show that it 
was  executed  on  January 27, 2008, and became operative on  January 29, 2008, for which the 
applicant is entitled to receive a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 1 under ALCOAST 
286/08.  The extension agreement shall be further corrected to show that it was executed for the 
purpose of obligating service for transfer.  The Coast Guard is further directed to review block 7 
on the extension contract and  to correct it to show the sum total of both the earlier 18-month 
extension  and  the  41-month  extension.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  the  sum  to 
which he is entitled as a result of this correction.   

 
All other requests for relief are denied. 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray