DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxx; CWO4 (retired) 
 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2008-166 

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 14, 2008, 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  April  16,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

  
The applicant, who retired from active duty on September 30, 2008, asked the Board to 
correct  his  record  by  replacing  his  October  14,  1981,  13-month  extension  contract,  which  he 
signed  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  accept  overseas  transfer  orders,  with  a  six-year 
reenlistment  contract,  to  make  him  eligible  for  a  Zone  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB) 
under ALDIST 340/81.  He alleged that his record contains no documentation of SRB counseling 
in 1981 and that "to the best of my knowledge I was not counseled on the SRB program so I did 
not know that there was a SRB for my rate or I would have reenlisted for six years."   
 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  31,  1978,  for  a  term  of  four  years, 
through July 30, 1982.  From October 14, 1981, through July 17, 2000, he signed the following 
reenlistment and extension contracts: 

 
October 14, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13 months 
July 22, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   19 months  
March 29, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3 years     
March 28, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12 months  
August 9, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6 months 
March 8, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4 years 
January 25, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6 years 
March 13, 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19 months 

August 25, 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 months 
July 17, 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24 months 
 
The applicant was appointed a chief warrant officer (CWO) on September 1, 2000, and so 
was not required to sign any additional enlistment or extension contracts.  His record does not 
contain documentation of SRB counseling in 1981.   
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 1, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief.  The JAG stated that 
the applicant was not properly counseled regarding his eligibility for an SRB when he signed his 
extension contract on October 14, 1981. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On December 8, 2008, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant responded on August 3, 2008, 
and agreed with the Coast Guard’s recommendations. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

ALDIST 340/81 was released on October 1, 1981, and it allowed members to receive an 
SRB  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments  for  at  least  three  years.    Under 
ALDIST 340/81, SK2s were eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0.  
 

Commandant Instruction 7220.13E (Administration of the Reenlistment Bonus Program) 
was released on May 4, 1979, and was in effect when ALDIST 340/81 was distributed.  Section 
1.d.(1) of Enclosure (1) provided the criteria for Zone A SRB eligibility.  It stated the following, 
in part: 
 

(1)  Zone A Eligibility.  [To be eligible, a member must meet all of the following 
criteria:] 
 

(a)  Be serving on active duty in pay grade E-3 or higher in a military specialty 
designated [in the SRB announcement].  
 
(b) Must have completed at least 21 months of continuous active duty, other 
than active duty for training, but not more than six years of total active duty, 
immediately preceding date of reenlistment or operative date of extension.  
 
(c)  The  extension  of  enlistment  or  reenlistment  must  be  at  least  three  years 
and, when combined with prior active duty, must yield a total of at least six 
years of active duty.  [Emphasis in original] 
 

(d) Has  not  previously  received  a  Zone  A  SRB,  nor  previously  enlisted, 
reenlisted, or extended (extensions that have become effective) beyond six 
years of active duty. . . .  

 

 

 
Section  1.g.  of  Enclosure  (1)  stated  that  in  order  to  “attain  the  objectives  of  the  SRB 
program,  each  potential  reenlistee  who  would  be  eligible  for  SRB  must  be  informed  of  their 
eligibility and the monetary benefits of the SRB program.  It is expected that the reenlistment 
interview,  held  approximately  six  months  before  expiration  of  enlistment,  will  provide  the 
potential reenlistee with complete information on SRB.” 
  

PREVIOUS BCMR DECISION 

In BCMR Docket No. 69-97, the applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show 
that he was eligible to receive an SRB for signing a six-year extension contract on February 14, 
1982.    He  stated  that  if  he  had been properly counseled and made aware of the provisions of 
ALDIST 004/82, he “would have taken the necessary steps to secure [a] zone ‘B’ bonus.”  There 
was nothing in the applicant’s record to show that he was counseled regarding his eligibility for 
an SRB.  The Board recommended granting relief, despite the fact that the Personnel Manual in 
effect at the time required only that members reenlisting receive SRB counseling.  The delegate 
of the Secretary1 wrote a concurring decision which responded to the Coast Guard’s argument 
that it was not required to counsel the applicant because he was signing an extension contract and 
not a reenlistment contract.  The delegate stated that Congress had intended both reenlistees and 
extendees to benefit from the SRB program and that the Coast Guard had presented no rational 
basis for counseling one group but not the other.  She concluded that the “Coast Guard erred in 
drafting  COMDTINST  7220.13E  when  it  failed  to  require  mandatory  counseling  for  potential 
extendees. . .”  BCMR Docket No. 69-97, delegate of the Secretary’s Concurring Decision, at 3. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

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  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  10 
U.S.C. § 1552.  The application was timely under Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 
1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the 
BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active duty”). 
 

The  applicant  did  not  receive  an  SRB  for  signing  an  extension  contract  on 
October 14, 1981, and stated that “to the best of my knowledge I was not counseled on the SRB 
program so I did not know that there was a SRB for my rate or I would have reenlisted for six 
years.”  He alleged that if he had been counseled regarding his eligibility for an SRB, then he 
would have signed a six-year reenlistment contract for the SRB, instead of signing a 13-month 
extension contract for which he did not receive an SRB.  The JAG agreed that the applicant was 
not properly counseled regarding his SRB eligibility and recommending granting relief. 
                                                 
1 When the Final Decision in Docket No. 69-97 was issued, the delegate of the Secretary was the Deputy General 
Counsel for the Department of Transportation.   

 

3.      As  he  alleged,  the  applicant's  record  contains  no  documentation  of  SRB 
counseling  in  1981.  However, COMDTINST 7220.13E, which was in effect in 1981, did not 
require  documentation  of  SRB counseling in  a  member's  record,  as  is  the  case  today  under 
Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual.  Therefore, the lack of documentation of SRB counseling 
in the applicant's record is not probative of whether he was counseled.  However, in 1981, the 
applicant  was  extending  his  enlistment  to  obligate  service  for  transfer,  and  COMDTINST 
7220.13E did not require extendees to be counseled about their SRB eligibility at all.  Given this 
regulation  and  the  applicant's  statement  that  "to  the  best  of  [his]  knowledge  [he]  was  not 
counseled"  about  his  SRB  eligibility  in  1981,  the  Board  finds  that  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence indicates that the applicant was not counseled about his SRB eligibility when he signed 
the 13-month extension contract on October 14, 1981. 
  

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  69-97,  the  delegate  of  the  secretary  held  that  the  "Coast 
Guard erred in drafting COMDTINST 7220.13E when it failed to require mandatory counseling 
for potential extendees on an equal basis with potential reenlistees."  The Board and the delegate 
of the Secretary have granted relief in several similar cases based on the delegate's finding that 
the  Coast  Guard  had  a  duty  to  counsel  extendees,  as  well  as  reenlistees,  about  their  SRB 
eligibility in the early 1980s, despite the lack of such a requirement in COMDTINST 7220.13E.2  
As in those prior cases, the Board finds that the Coast Guard had a duty to counsel the applicant 
about his SRB eligibility when he signed the extension contract on October 14, 1981, and so the 
lack of such counseling was administrative error. 
 

4.     

5. 

The applicant alleged that if he had been told of his SRB eligibility in 1981, he 
would have reenlisted for six years to receive a Zone A SRB under ALDIST 340/81.  The Board 
notes  in  this  regard  that  the  applicant  had  no  break  in  service  whatsoever  during  his  military 
career even though a member may have a three-month break in service with no loss of eligibility 
for  an  SRB.3    The  lack  of  any  break in service during this period—as well as the applicant’s 
approximately 30 years of continuous service—demonstrates his long-term commitment to the 
Coast Guard.  Furthermore, the applicant has signed a sworn statement to the effect that he would 
have  signed  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract  for  an  SRB  in  1981  if  he  had  been  properly 
counseled.  Therefore, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the 
applicant would have signed a six-year reenlistment contract, instead of a 13-month extension 
contract, on October 14, 1981, if had he been properly counseled regarding his eligibility for an 
SRB under ALDIST 340/81. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. The Coast Guard should 
correct  his  record  by  removing  his  October  14,  1981,  13-month  extension  contract  from  his 
record  and  replacing  it  with  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract,  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  pursuant  to 
ALDIST 340/81. 
 
 

6. 

                                                 
2 Docket No. 1999-022 (DOT BCMR, Sept. 9, 1999), Docket No. 1998-008 (DOT BCMR, Aug. 27, 1998), Docket 
No. 1997-123 (DOT BCMR, Sept. 11, 1998), and Docket No. 1997-062 (DOT BCMR, Sept. 23, 1998). 
3 Article 1.d.(3)(b) of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.13E. 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxx, USCG  (Retired), for correction of 

ORDER 

 

his military record is granted as follows:   

 
 
The Coast Guard shall remove his October 14, 1981, 13-month extension contract from 
his  record  as  null  and  void  and  shall  replace  it  with  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract  dated 
October 14, 1981, for a Zone A SRB pursuant to ALDIST 340/81.   
 
 

The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount due as the result of this correction.  
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 
 Diane Donley 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger