DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-203 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed  application  on  July  22,  2009,  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). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  22,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he canceled his three-
month extension contract by reenlisting for six years on June 29, 2009, for a Zone B selective 
reenlistment bonus (SRB) under ALCOAST 286/08.  He alleged that when he signed the three-
month extension on May 1, 2009, aboard the HAMILTON, he was told by a third class yeoman 
(YN3) that his SRB multiple was 1.7 and that he had to obligate at least three more months of 
service to accept his transfer orders to a new unit, the GALLATIN.  He was also told that he 
could reenlist for a longer period to get an SRB.  However, he stated, “Knowing that the SRB 
message [a new ALCOAST] was set to come out a month from that time, I opted to just extend 
for three months to wait and see if the SRB multiple might increase.”  The applicant alleged that 
the  YN3  told  him  that  if  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  just  3  months  and  the  SRB  multiple 
changed under the new ALCOAST, he could cancel the extension by reenlisting to get an SRB 
after he arrived at his new unit.  Therefore, he extended his enlistment for just 3 months.   
 

After he reported to the GALLATIN on June 3, 2009, a new ALCOAST was issued on 
June 12, 2009, which eliminated the SRB multiple for his rating as of July 15, 2009.  Therefore, 
he tried to reenlist on June 29, 2009, and a YN1 on the GALLATIN signed a Page 7 stating that 
he was eligible to reenlist for an SRB.  However, two days later, the paperwork was rejected by 
the cutter’s Servicing Personnel Office when a YNC advised the GALLATIN that because the 
applicant already had sufficient obligated service for his transfer and his enlistment as extended 

ran through July 17, 2010, he was not eligible to sign another reenlistment or extension contract 
and so could not receive an SRB.   

 
Therefore, on July 10, 2009, the applicant signed his application to the BCMR.  In it, he 
alleged that he believes  the YN3’s poor advice  was based on a misunderstanding of the SRB 
rules, one of which says that “[e]xtensions previously executed by members may be canceled 
prior to their operative date for the purpose of executing a longer extension or reenlistment in 
accordance with Article 1.G.19.,” because that sentence does not explain that there are limita-
tions on when a member is eligible to execute a longer extension or reenlistment contract. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant first enlisted on August 28, 2001, and reenlisted for four years for a Zone A 
SRB on April 18, 2006.  On May 1, 2009, the applicant extended his enlistment for three months 
to obligate sufficient service to accept transfer orders from the HAMILTON to the GALLATIN.  
His record does not contain a Page 7 documenting the SRB counseling that he received from the 
YN3 on May 1, 2009.  In signing the extension, however, he acknowledged having had a chance 
to read the SRB rules and fully understanding the effect the extension would have “upon [his] 
current and future SRB eligibility.”   
 

The  applicant’s  record  does  contain  a  Page  7  dated  June  29,  2009,  showing  that  he 
attempted to reenlist for an SRB on that date and was initially allowed to do so by a YN1 on the 
GALLATIN.  However, the reenlistment contract was rejected and is not in his record. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 10, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opin-

 
 
ion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief. 
 
 
The JAG admitted that there is no Page 7 documenting proper SRB counseling on May 1, 
2009, in the applicant’s record and that the lack of a Page 7 “aids in supporting the applicant’s 
allegation of error.”  However, the JAG stated, Article 3.C.5.5. of the Personnel Manual clearly 
states that “[u]nder no circumstances will an individual be permitted to extend their enlistment 
more than 3 months early for SRB purposes alone.”  Therefore, because the applicant already 
had sufficient obligated service in his record, there was no authority for him to sign a new con-
tract just to get an SRB in June or July 2009. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 7, 2010, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He stated 
that he disagreed with the JAG’s analysis of his case.  He stated that had he been properly coun-
seled  on  May  1,  2009,  he  would  have  extended  his  enlistment  for  a  longer  period  to  become 
entitled to an SRB.  “Quite simply,” he stated, “if properly counseled, I would have been aware I 
did not have the option to wait and see if the SRB multiple might increase.  With that knowledge, 
I would have extended for the appropriate period of time to be entitled to the SRB.”  He noted 

that the JAG admitted that the lack of a Page 7 documenting SRB counseling on that date sup-
ports his allegation of erroneous counseling. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of an email dated January 5, 
2010, from the YNC aboard the HAMILTON, where he signed the three-month extension con-
tract on May 1, 2009, to a YNC aboard the GALLATIN.  The HAMILTON’s YNC wrote the 
following in the email: 
 

After review of some paperwork in his dead file, I do believe [the applicant] was incorrectly coun-
seled by [the YN3].  After talking with [the YN3], she claims she has no memory of the conversa-
tion  between  [the  applicant]  and  herself  regarding  his  SRB.    The  paperwork  reveals  there  was 
some confusion and inconsistency during the counseling session.  I was on leave and unable to 
over[see] the procedure which means only [the YN3 and the applicant] know what was really said 
in their conversation.  [The YN3] will be counseled to alleviate something like this ever happening 
again  concerning  a  member’s  career.    In  closing,  I  believe  the  member  should  be  entitled  to 
receive the SRB after being counseled incorrectly. 

 

 
 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Under ALCOAST 286/08, which was in effect from July 16, 2008, to July 15, 2009, the 
 
applicant was eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.7.  However, on June 12, 
2009,  ALCOAST  353/09  was  issued,  which  eliminated  the  SRB  multiple  for  the  applicant’s 
rating as of July 16, 2009. 
 

Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual states, “All personnel with 10 years or less active 
service who reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall be counseled on the SRB pro-
gram. They shall sign an Administrative Remarks, CG-3307 (page 7), service record entry out-
lining the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
 
 
 

Article 3.C.5. of the Personnel Manual includes the following SRB rules: 

5.  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 rea-
son  (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. 
 
6.  Extensions previously executed by members may be canceled prior to their operative date for 
the  purpose  of  executing  a  longer  extension  or  reenlistment  in  accordance  with  Article  1.G.19. 
Members  should  be  informed  that  their  SRB  entitlement  will  be  based  only  on  newly  acquired 
obligated service.  For example, a member cancels a 3-year extension to reenlist for 6 years; the 
member will only be paid SRB entitlement for the additional 3 years of service.  An exception to 
this rule is made for extensions of 2 years or less, or multiple extensions (each of which is 2 years 
or less in length), required of a member for transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance.  
These  extensions  may  be  canceled  prior  to  their  operation  date  for  the  purpose  of  immediate 
reenlistment or longer extension without any loss of SRB entitlement. 

Article 3.C.6. of the manual, entitled “Changes in Multiples,” states the following: 

When a rating multiple is designated for increase, reduction, or termination, an effective date of 
the change shall be promulgated by ALCOAST at least 30 days in advance.  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.15. and 12.B.7. 

Article 1.G.15.a. of the manual states that with the approval of their commanding offi-
cers, members may extend their enlistments for various purposes, such as to obligate sufficient 
service to attend training or to transfer to a new unit.  Article 1.G.18.b. states the following: 

 
An  individual  may  not  extend  his  or  her  enlistment  more  than  three  months  (for  regular  active 
duty) or 30 days (for reservists) before the date the existing enlistment expires.  For certain pur-
poses, however, such as assignment to a Service school, duty outside CONUS, other duty requir-
ing additional obligated service, or enabling a reservist to meet the 6-year selected Reserve affilia-
tion  requirement  for  the  Montgomery  G.I.  Bill,  an  individual  may  extend  his  or  her  enlistment 
considerably in advance.  An individual may not extend more than three months early for SRB 
bonus purposes only. (Article 1.G.15.). 

 

 

 
 
Under Article 1.G.3. of the Personnel Manual, a commanding officer (CO) may reenlist a 
member within 24 hours of his end of enlistment (EOE).  Under Article 12.B.7., a CO may dis-
charge a member up to three months before his EOE for the purpose of immediately reenlisting 
the member if operations require it—e.g., the cutter will be at sea on the EOE.  A CO may only 
discharge and reenlist a member more than three months before his EOE on the member’s 6th, 
10th, and 14th anniversaries when he is eligible for an SRB. 
 

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. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  miscounseled  by  a YN3  aboard  the  HAMIL-
TON on May 1, 2009, and so mistakenly thought that if he satisfied his obligated service require-
ment for transfer by extending his prior enlistment for just three months, he could sign a longer 
contract to get an SRB just two or three months later after learning from the new ALCOAST 
what new SRB multiple would go into effect on July 16, 2009.  The Board begins its analysis in 
every case by presuming that the disputed information in the applicant’s military record is cor-
rect as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or unjust.1 Absent evidence to the con-
trary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have car-
ried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”2  For the reasons stated below, the 
Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mis-
counseled about the SRB rules and is entitled to relief. 
                                                 
1 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)).   
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). 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  JAG  argued  that  relief  should  be  denied  because  Article  3.C.5.5.  clearly 
states, “Under no circumstances will an individual be permitted to extend their enlistment more 
than 3 months early for SRB purposes alone,” and after obligating sufficient service to accept his 
transfer orders on May 1, 2009, the applicant’s only apparent reason for signing another contract 
in  June  or  July  2009  would  have  been  to  gain  an  SRB.    The  applicant  argued  that  the  SRB 
regulations are confusing because Article 3.C.5.6. of the Personnel Manual states that “[e]xten-
sions previously executed by members may be canceled prior to their operative date for the pur-
pose of executing a longer extension or reenlistment,” and does not note any other requirements 
or restrictions on executing a longer extension or reenlistment contract.   

The Board agrees with the JAG that the rule under Article 3.C.5.5. is clear.  Mem-
bers may not normally sign extension or reenlistment contracts just to get an SRB.  Under the 
Personnel Manual, members may reenlist or extend their enlistments only when their enlistments 
are ending; upon their 6th, 10th, and 14th anniversaries for an SRB; or when they must obligate 
additional  service  for  a  particular  purpose,  such  as  accepting  orders  to  transfer  or  attend 
training.3  However, this finding does not end the Board’s inquiry because even though the rule is 
clear,  the  applicant  may  have  been  miscounseled  about  the  rule  by  the  YN3.    Coast  Guard 
members should be able to rely on their yeomen for accurate counseling about the SRB rules. 

The fact that the applicant applied to the Board very quickly after his attempt to 
reenlist was denied and only two months after he signed the three-month extension contract is 
evidence that his desire to reenlist for the SRB is not a matter of retrospective reconsideration—
i.e., this is not a situation in which the applicant was dissatisfied with his career on May 1, 2009, 
and so refused to reenlist for an SRB but, after several months, became more satisfied and regret-
ted that he  did not reenlist for an SRB on May  1.  The Board is persuaded that the applicant 
wanted to reenlist or extend his service for an SRB on May 1, 2009, but believed that he could 
wait to see what his SRB multiple would be under the new SRB ALCOAST—which is always 
issued at least 30 days before the new multiples go into effect4—without losing his eligibility to 
reenlist before ALCOAST 286/08 expired.  Therefore, he extended his enlistment for just three 
months. 
 
6. 

The Board is persuaded that the applicant was confused about the rules.  Other-
wise, he would have reenlisted or extended his enlistment for six years on May 1, 2009, to get 
the SRB instead of signing a three-month extension contract and trying to reenlist in June.  The 
question  is  whether  he  was  actively  miscounseled  by  the  YN3,  as  he  alleges,  or  whether  he 
himself simply misunderstood.  The YN3 has not admitted that she miscounseled the applicant.  
However, there is no Page 7 dated May 1, 2009, documenting SRB counseling in the applicant’s 
record, which indicates that the YN3 did not do her job correctly because Page 7s documenting 
SRB  counseling  must  be  prepared  every  time  a  member  signs  a  reenlistment  or  extension 
contract.5  In addition, the YNC of the HAMILTON has stated that, after reviewing the YN3’s 
paperwork, she believes that the YN3 miscounseled the applicant. 

                                                 
3 Personnel Manual, Articles 1.G.3., 1.G.15., 1.G.18., 3.C.5.9., and 12.B.7. 
4 Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.6. 
5 Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.3. 

 
7. 

Therefore, the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
was miscounseled on May 1, 2009, about the effect his three-month extension would have on his 
future SRB eligibility and that, if he had been accurately counseled, he would have reenlisted or 
extended  his  enlistment  for  six  years  instead  of  extending  his  enlistment  for  three  months.  
Because the applicant stated in his response to the advisory opinion that he would have extended 
his enlistment for a longer period to get the SRB, because the extension contract would give the 
applicant more months of newly obligated service in the calculation of the SRB, and because the 
JAG recommended an extension instead of a reenlistment as alternative relief in a very similar 
case, BCMR Docket No. 2009-220, the Board finds that the applicant’s record should be cor-
rected to show that on May 1, 2009, he extended his enlistment for six years instead of just three 
months. 
 
8. 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  correcting  the  term  of  the  applicant’s 
May 1, 2009, extension contract from three months to six years so that he will be entitled to a 
Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 286/08. 

 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 
granted.  The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he extended his enlistment for six 
years, instead of just three months, on May 1, 2009, for a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 286/08.  
The  Coast  Guard  shall  remove  from  his  record  as  null  and  void  any  other  reenlistment  or 
extension  contract  he  may  have  signed  since  that  date.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  him  any 
amount due as a result of these corrections. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 James E. McLeod 

   
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke