DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-209 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  25,  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 alleged that when he reenlisted for four years (48 months) on February 12, 
2009, he was told that he would receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated 
with 47 months of newly obligated service under the contract.  However, he alleged, he received 
an SRB based on only 11 months of newly obligated service.  The applicant submitted copies of 
his reenlistment contract and a Page 7 documenting the SRB counseling he received on February 
12, 2009, and both documents state that his SRB would be based on 47 months of newly obli-
gated service.  The Coast Guard paid him the SRB based on only 11 months of newly obligated 
service  because  in  February  2008,  the  applicant  had  signed  a  36-month  extension  contract  to 
obligate service to accept transfer orders. 

 
The applicant further alleged that he was miscounseled when he extended his enlistment 
for 36 months in February 2008.  He alleged that the acting executive petty officer (XPO) of his 
unit,  Station  Destin,  told  him  that  after  he  advanced  to  MK2,  he  would  be  able  to  cancel  the 
extension before it became operative to reenlist for a  full four-year SRB.  Therefore, after he 
advanced to MK2 on December 1, 2008, he asked to reenlist for the SRB and was allowed to do 
so on February 12, 2009.  However, when his SRB was finally paid in July 2009, it was about 
$12,000 less than he expected.  A YN2 at his unit investigated and informed him that the 36-
month extension contract he had signed in 2008 had counted as previously obligated service and 
reduced  the  SRB  he  received  for  reenlisting  for  four  years  on  February  12,  2009.    He  was 
directed to Article 3.C.5.6. of the Personnel Manual, which states that only extension contracts 

that are less than two years (24 months) in length can be canceled by reenlisting without reduc-
ing the SRB for the reenlistment contract. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On  March  11,  2003,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  six  years,  through 

 
 
March 10, 2009.   
 
 
In February 2008, the applicant received transfer orders from Station Destin, Florida, to a 
unit in Boston.  At the time, the applicant was an MK3.  MK3s were not eligible for SRBs under 
ALCOAST 304/07, which was then in effect, and his record contains no Page 7 documenting 
any SRB counseling.  The transfer orders required the applicant to have four years of obligated 
service upon reporting to his new unit on May 19, 2008.  Because his original enlistment would 
end on March 10, 2009, to accept the transfer orders, he signed a three-year extension contract, 
obligating service from March 11, 2009, through March 10, 2012.1   
 
 
On December 1, 2008, the applicant advanced to MK2, and that rating was eligible for an 
SRB under ALCOAST 286/08.  On February 12, 2009, he reenlisted for four years, through Feb-
ruary 11, 2013.  The contract states the following in block 8:  “Member is entitled to a Zone A 
SRB with a multiple of 1.7 based upon 47 months [of] newly obligated service.”  A Page 7 in the 
applicant’s  record  dated  February  12,  2009,  states,  “My  SRB  will  be  computed  based  on  47 
months  of  newly  obligated  service.”    However,  because  only  the  months  from  the  end  of  the 
three-year extension, March 11, 2012, through February 11, 2013, were newly obligated under 
the reenlistment contract, the applicant was paid a Zone A SRB based on 11 months of newly 
obligated service. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 18, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opin-

 
 
ion in which he recommended that the Board grant alternate relief. 
 
 
The JAG stated that when the applicant reenlisted for four years (48 months) on February 
12, 2009, he had previously obligated 37 of the months of service under a prior contract—one 
month remained to run on his original, six-year enlistment, and the applicant had signed a three-
year  extension  contract  in  2008.    Therefore,  only  11  of  the  48  months  were  newly  obligated 
service.  The JAG noted that it is possible that the applicant would not have reenlisted had he 
known that his Zone A SRB would be based on only 11 months of newly obligated service. 
 
 
The JAG recommended that the Board backdate the applicant’s reenlistment from Febru-
ary 12, 2009, to December 12, 2009,2 to “allow the applicant to take full advantage of the SRB 
                                                 
1 The Board notes that the extension contract should have extended his enlistment for 39 months, rather than 36, to 
give him four full years of obligated service upon reporting to his new unit in May 2008. 
2 The Board staff noted that the correction recommended by the JAG would reduce the applicant’s Zone A SRB 
from one based on 11 months to one based on 9 months of newly obligated service.  Upon inquiry, the JAG’s office 
stated that the date, December 12, 2009, was in error as the intention was to recommend moving the date of the 
contract to the applicant’s 6th active duty anniversary, March 11, 2009, rather than to December 12, 2009. 

program.  If approved, the applicant should be advised that his 10th year active duty anniversary 
date is 11 March 2013, a few months after his newly suggested EOE date of 9 [sic] December 
2012.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 5, 2010, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard by noting 

that he agreed with the JAG’s recommendation.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under ALCOAST 307/04, which was in effect from July 16, 2007, to July 15, 2008, there 
was no SRB multiple authorized for MK3s.  Under ALCOAST 286/08, which was in effect from 
July 16, 2008, to July 15, 2009, the applicant, after his advancement to MK2 on December 1, 
2008, was eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.7. 
 

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.5.6. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

 

 

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. Mem-
bers 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.7.1. of the manual states that SRBs are calculated by multiplying the author-
ized SRB multiple for the member’s rating by the member’s monthly basic pay and by the num-
ber of months of service newly obligated under the contract and dividing the product by 12, as 
shown below. 
 

SRB multiple x monthly basic pay x months newly obligated service 

 
Under Article 4.B.6.a. of the manual, a member with less than six years of service must 
have sufficient obligated service to complete a full tour of duty at a new unit before accepting 
transfer orders.  According to Article 4.A.5.b., a full tour of duty at the applicant’s new station in 
Boston is 4 years.   
 

12 

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. 

The application was timely. 
 

 
3. 

 
4. 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  miscounseled  about  his  SRB  eligibility  and 
promised an SRB based on 47 months of newly obligated service when, in fact, his 48-month 
reenlistment added only 11 months of service not previously obligated by him under an earlier 
contract.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed information 
in the applicant’s military record is correct 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.3  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and 
other  Government  employees  have  carried  out  their  duties  “correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good 
faith.”4  For the reasons stated below, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that he was miscounseled about the SRB rules and is entitled to some 
relief. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  miscounseled  in  February  2008  when  he 
received his transfer orders to Boston.  He alleged that he was told that although he was not then 
eligible  for  an  SRB  as  an  MK3,  he  would  be  able  to  cancel  the  three-year  extension  after  he 
advanced to MK2 by reenlisting to receive an SRB.  His allegation of miscounseling is supported 
by the lack of a Page 7 in his record documenting SRB counseling.5  Under Article 3.C.5.6. of 
the Personnel Manual, members may cancel an extension within the three months prior to the 
operative date by reenlisting for an SRB, and so the applicant was allowed to do so on February 
12, 2009.  However, as that regulation also states, a canceled extension counts as previously obli-
gated service and the resulting SRB is based only on months of newly  obligated service.  An 
exception is made for extensions of two years or less, but under Articles 4.B.6.a. and 4.A.5.b. of 
the Personnel Manual, the applicant could not accept his transfer orders without signing at least a 
three-year extension.6 

The reenlistment contract and Page 7 dated February 12, 2009, clearly show that 
the applicant was told that reenlisting for four years would entitle him to an SRB based on 47 
months of newly obligated service.  In fact, the applicant had already obligated service through 
March 10, 2012, under his three-year extension contract.  Therefore, the four-year reenlistment 
                                                 
3 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)).   
4 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
5 Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, members must be counseled about their SRB eligibility on a Page 7 
whenever they sign a reenlistment or extension contract. 
6 See note 1, above. 

through  February  11,  2013,  added  only  11  new  months  of  military  service  obligation  to  his 
record, and his SRB was calculated with only 11 new months of service.  Thus, the applicant has 
proved that he was miscounseled about his SRB eligibility on February 12, 2009. 

Article  3.C.5.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  clearly  states,  as  an  example,  that  the 
SRB of a member reenlisting for six years who already has three years of previously obligated 
service will be based on only three years of newly obligated service.  Therefore, the Board does 
not see how the applicant’s SRB counselor, who should have known this rule, or the applicant 
himself, who had signed the three-year extension less than a year earlier, could have thought that 
his 48-month reenlistment would entitled him to an SRB “based upon 47 months [of] newly obli-
gated service,” as stated on the reenlistment contract. 

The alternative relief recommended by the JAG was a mistake because backdat-
ing the applicant’s February 12, 2009, reenlistment by two months, to December 12, 2008, would 
entitle him to a Zone A SRB based on just nine months of newly obligated service from the end 
of his three-year extension to December 11, 2012, instead of February 11, 2013.  Therefore, part 
of the 11-month SRB he has already received would be recouped.  The applicant’s SRB would 
also be recouped if the Board removed the four-year reenlistment from his record. 

The applicant has not stated what he would have done on February 12, 2009, had 
he known that reenlisting for four  years would entitle him to a Zone A SRB based on just 11 
months of newly obligated service.  As the JAG stated, it is possible that the applicant would not 
have reenlisted on February 12, 2009, had he known that his Zone A SRB would be based on 
only 11 months of newly obligated service.  However, the applicant’s sixth anniversary on active 
duty—the end of Zone A for him—was March 11, 2009, so he could only receive a Zone A SRB 
by reenlisting during the three months before that date.  The applicant may at some time in the 
future be eligible for a Zone B SRB if one is authorized for his rating on his tenth active duty 
anniversary, March 11, 2013.  However, under ALCOAST 621/09, all SRB multiples have been 
cancelled since December 1, 2009, due to the high retention rates of enlisted members. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 
 

Had  he  been  properly  counseled,  the  applicant  might  have  elected  to  wait  one 
month  to  reenlist  on  his  sixth  active  duty  anniversary,  March  11,  2009,  which  would  have 
entitled him to an SRB based on 12 months of newly obligated service; and he may also have 
elected to reenlist for  five  years or  the maximum of six  years, from March 11, 2009, through 
March 10, 2015, which would have entitled him to an SRB based on three years (36 months) of 
newly obligated service, from March 11, 2012, through March 10, 2015.  Because the applicant 
was clearly miscounseled about his SRB eligibility on February 12, 2009, the Board finds that he 
should be recounseled and have all of the options that were available to him on February 12, 
2009. 

Accordingly,  relief should be granted by offering the applicant SRB counseling 

and, at his discretion, one of the following options: 

(a) 

He could elect to have the date of his four-year reenlistment changed to 
March 11, 2009, so that he would be eligible for a Zone A SRB based on 12 months of newly 
obligated service. 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

(b) 

He could elect to have the date of his reenlistment changed to March 11, 
2009, and the term of his reenlistment changed to five or six years, at his discretion, so that he 
would be eligible for a Zone A SRB based, respectively, on 24 months or 36 months of newly 
obligated service. 

(c) 

He  could  elect  to  have  his  February  12,  2009,  reenlistment  contract 
removed from his record as null and void, in which case the three-year extension would be rein-
stated and the 11-month SRB he has already received would be recouped. 
 
If after SRB counseling, the applicant does not elect one of the these three options, the status quo 
should prevail and no correction should be made to his record. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 
(a) 

 
(b) 

 
(c) 

 
 

record pursuant to this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is  granted in part as follows.  Within 60 days of the date of this decision, the 
Coast Guard shall counsel him about SRBs and about his options under this order and shall offer 
him the following options: 

He may elect to have the date of his four-year reenlistment changed to March 11, 
2009, so that he will be eligible for and entitled to a Zone A SRB based on 12 months of newly 
obligated service. 

He  may  elect  to  have  the  date  of  his  reenlistment  changed  from  February  12, 
2009, to March 11, 2009, and the term of his reenlistment changed from four years to five years 
or six years, at his discretion, so that he will be eligible for and entitled to a Zone A SRB based, 
respectively, on 24 months or 36 months of newly obligated service. 

He may elect to have his February 12, 2009, reenlistment contract removed from 
his record as null and void, in which case the three-year extension shall be reinstated and the 11-
month SRB he has already received may be recouped. 

 
If following SRB counseling, he does not elect one of these three options, the status quo 

shall prevail and no correction shall be made to his record. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount due as a result of any correction made to his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

                     

 

    

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
   
 Adrian Sevier