DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2010-078 
 

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  January  3,  2010,  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  October  8,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant, an operations specialist, first class (OS1; E-6), on active duty in the Coast 
Guard,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  the  date  of  his  reenlistment  contract  from  September  4  to 
October 1, 2009, so that he will be eligible for the Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 
that he was promised on the contract.  He alleged that he was incorrectly counseled that he would 
receive an SRB for reenlisting on September 4, 2009, and that he could have waited until Octo-
ber 1, 2009, to reenlist because his prior enlistment did not end until then.  After reenlisting, he 
learned  that  under  ALCOAST  393/09,  the  SRB  program  had  been  suspended  from  July  16, 
through September 30, 2009.  Although the Coast Guard has enforced the reenlistment contract 
by entering it in his record, the applicant has not received the promised SRB.  The applicant also 
noted  that  by  reenlisting,  he  canceled  a  one-year  extension  contract  that  he  had  previously 
executed to obligate service for his transfer to a new unit on July 1, 2009. 
 

                                                 
1  SRBs  are  bonuses  the  Coast  Guard  offers  to  members  in  critical  skill  ratings  as  an  extra  inducement  to  reenlist.  
SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s service, the number of months of service newly obligated by 
the  reenlistment  or  extension  contract,  and  the  need  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  retain  personnel  with  the  member’s 
particular  skills,  which  is  reflected  in  the  “multiple”  of  the  SRB  authorized  for  the  member’s  rating,  which  is 
published in an ALCOAST.  Members who have at least 17 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service 
are in “Zone A.”  Members who have completed at least 6 but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in 
“Zone  B.”    Members  may  not  receive  more  than  one  bonus  per  zone.    UNITED  STATES  COAST  GUARD,  COMDT-
INST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. 3.C.4. (Change 41, June 18, 2007) (hereinafter “PERSMAN”). 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  October  2,  2001,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years,  through 
October 1, 2005.  On May 3, 2005, he extended his enlistment for four years, through October 1, 
2009, to obligate sufficient service to transfer.  On June 1, 2005, he advanced to OS1.   
 
 
On December 24, 2008, the applicant was issued orders to transfer to a training center on 
July  1,  2009,  to  become  an  OS  instructor.    The  orders  stated  the  following  with  regard  to  the 
obligated service requirement for the transfer: 
 

OBLIGATED  SERVICE:    Refer  to  PERSMAN,  COMDTINST  M1000.6  (series),  Arts  4.B.6.  or 
4.E.2.a.  (as  applicable)  for  OBLISERV  requirements.    Notify  CGPC-epm-2  and  CGPC-epm-1 
immediately if member declines to reenlist or extend to meet minimum OBLISERV. 
 
This assignment requires minimum four (4) years OBLISERV. 

 

Upon receipt of these orders, the applicant’s command apparently required him to extend 
his enlistment for just one year, from October 2, 2009, and through October 1, 2010.  Although 
there is no evidence of this extension contract in the copy of his record submitted to the Board by 
the Coast Guard, the applicant himself submitted a copy of this contract, but it is unsigned and 
undated.  In addition, the extension contract states that it was signed at  the “request of individ-
ual,” rather than to have “obligated service for transfer.” 

 
On June 12, 2009, the Commandant issued ALCOAST 353/09, which authorized a Zone 
B SRB with a multiple of 0.5 for OS1s as of July 16, 2009.  On July 10, 2009, the Commandant 
issued ALCOAST 393/09, which suspended the SRB program from July 16 through September 
30, 2009, because of fiscal constraints and authorized members to execute short-term extension 
contracts through October 2009 under certain circumstances to preserve their SRB eligibility.  As 
of October 1, 2009, contracts with promises of SRBs were once again authorized.2 

 
On  September  4,  2009,  the  applicant  canceled  the  one-year  extension  by  reenlisting  for 
six  years.  This reenlistment contract includes the following provision:  “MBR AUTHORIZED 
ZONE  B  SRB  IAW  ALCOAST  353/09  WITH  MULTIPLE  OF  0.5  FOR  EXPIRATION  OF 
ENLISTMENT.” 

 
There are no Page 7s (forms CG-3307) documenting SRB counseling in the copy of the 

applicant’s record supplied by the Coast Guard.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  June  3,  2010,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 

advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief.   

 
The  JAG  stated that  when  the  applicant  received  his  transfer  orders  in  December 2008, 
his command erred by having him obligate just one year of additional service, pursuant to Article 
                                                 
2 However, under ALCOAST 621/09, the SRB program has been suspended indefinitely  since December 1, 2009, 
due to the high retention rate of enlisted members in all ratings. 

 

 

4.B.6. of the Personnel  Manual,3 when the orders stated that he needed four  years of obligated 
service  from  the  day  he  reported  to  his  new  unit,  July  1,  2009.    The  JAG  concluded  that  the 
applicant should have been required to obligate service through July 1, 2013, to accept his trans-
fer orders, instead of obligating just one more year of service through October 1, 2010. 

 
The  JAG  stated  that  on  August  25,  2009,  the  applicant  submitted  a  Career  Intentions 
Worksheet  showing  that  he  wanted  to  reenlist  for  six  years  on  October  2,  2009.    For  reasons 
unknown, on September 1, 2009, he submitted a second worksheet requesting reenlistment as of 
September 3, 2009. 

 
The JAG claimed that the applicant was not within three months of his end of enlistment 
in September and October 2009 and so he was not authorized to reenlist.  The JAG alleged that 
the applicant’s end of enlistment was October 1, 2010, because of the one-year extension he had 
signed to obligate service for his transfer to the training center.  The JAG alleged in this regard 
that Article 3.C.5.6. of the Personnel Manual allows members to cancel extensions by reenlisting 
for  a  longer  period  only  “in  connection  with  Article  1.G.19.,”  and  therefore  does  not  apply  to 
“this applicant’s scenario.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 25, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the JAG’s advisory opinion and 

 
 
invited him to respond.  No response was received. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

1. 

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

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 application was timely.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that he was erroneously counseled about his SRB eligibility 
and has been denied an SRB that he was promised on his reenlistment contract and that he could 
have received had he waited a month to reenlist.  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.4  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.”5  

2. 

 

                                                 
3  PERSMAN,  Art.  4.B.6.  (“Personnel  E-4  and  above  with  over  six  years  of  active  duty  are  considered  to  be  in  a 
career  status.  Unless  otherwise  indicated,  they  are  required  to  have  one  year  of  OBLISERV  remaining  upon 
reporting to the new unit.”). 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).   
5 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. 

The  written  promise  of  the  SRB  on  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  dated 
September 4, 2009—when the SRB program was suspended—and the lack of the required Page 
7s documenting  SRB counseling in the applicant’s record  prove that he  was erroneously  coun-
seled about his SRB eligibility.6  The JAG, however, argued that the applicant was not entitled to 
reenlist  in  September  or  October  2009  because  he  had  already  extended  his  prior  enlistment 
through October 1, 2010, and so was not within three months of his end of enlistment.7  In this 
regard,  the  JAG  stated  that  Article  3.C.5.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  does  not  apply  to  the 
applicant.  Article 3.C.5.6. states the following in toto: 
 

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. 

 
Thus, Article 3.C.5.6. appears to strongly support the applicant’s position that he was entitled to 
cancel  his  one-year  extension  before  its  operative  date,  October  2,  2009,  by  reenlisting  for  six 
years for an SRB.   

 
4. 

The JAG argued that Article 3.C.5.6. does not  apply to  the applicant  because  of 

the reference to Article 1.G.19., which states the following: 
 

Unless  canceled  for  one  of  the  reasons  in  Article  1.G.20,  an  Agreement  to  Extend  Enlistment 
becomes operative on the date next following the normal date the enlistment expires or the enlist-
ment expiration date as  voluntarily extended or as extended to  make  up time  not served (Article 
12.B.11.), as appropriate. 

 
Thus, Article 1.G.19. states that all extensions become operative following the end of an enlist-
ment unless they are canceled pursuant to Article 1.G.20.  However, Article 1.G.20. appears to 
list only the following grounds for canceling an extension contract before its operative date: 

 
(1)  The service member is absent over or without leave [AWOL] on the date the original enlist-
ment term expires, unless the commanding officer believes the member absented him- or herself to 
cancel the agreement to extend. 
(2) Before closing the Personnel Data Record on desertion, if it occurs before the date the exten-
sion begins to run. 
(3)  When  the  commanding  officer  receives  orders  to  discharge  the  member  before  the  date  the 
extension begins to run. 
(4)  When  an  individual's  performance  of  duty  or  conduct  is  unsatisfactory  and  the  commanding 
officer  believes  the  member  is  not  suitable  to  retain  in  the  Service.    Enter  the  facts  in  full  on 
Administrative Remarks, CG-3307. 
 

                                                 
6 PERSMAN, Art. 3.C.3. (requiring Page 7s documenting detailed SRB counseling whenever a member reenlists or 
extends his enlistment). 
7  PERSMAN,  Art.  12.B.7.b.  (authorizing  commanding  officers  to  discharge  and  reenlist  members  up  to  three 
months before their enlistments end). 

 

 

5. 

Therefore, by arguing that Article 3.C.5.6. did not apply to the applicant because 
 
he could not cancel the extension in accordance with Article 1.G.19., which only allows cancela-
tions pursuant to Article 1.G.20., the JAG appears to be arguing that the only members who can 
cancel  an  extension  by  reenlisting  to  receive  an  SRB  under  Article  3.C.5.6.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual are members whose extensions may be canceled pursuant to Article 1.G.20.—i.e., mem-
bers who are AWOL, members who have deserted, members whose discharge has already been 
ordered  by  the  Commandant,  and  members  whose  conduct  is  so  unsatisfactory  that  their  com-
manding officers do not want to retain them.  This argument is obviously absurd and would logi-
cally  render  Article  3.C.5.6.  a  nullity  because  no  one  whose  extension  was  being  canceled  for 
one of the reasons listed in Article 1.G.20. would be allowed to reenlist for a longer period to get 
an SRB pursuant to Article 3.C.5.6. 
 
 
The  mystery  of  the  reference  to  Article  1.G.19.  in  Article  3.C.5.6.  is  solved  by 
reviewing  past  changes  to  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  wording  of  Article  3.C.5.6.  has  not 
changed since it was entered in the Personnel Manual in 2002,8 nor has Article 1.G.19. changed 
since  then.    However,  when  Article  3.C.5.6.  was  entered  in  the  Personnel  Manual,  Article 
1.G.20.2.b. stated the following: 
 

6. 

The commanding officer  may cancel an  Agreement to Extend Enlistment on the effective exten-
sion date when the individual concerned has reenlisted or extended on that date for any authorized 
enlistment term longer than the original extension agreement.  … Extensions of two years or less 
for a member to receive PCS orders, attend training, or obligate for advancement may be canceled 
before  their  operative  date  for  immediate  reenlistment  or  longer  extension  without  any  loss  of 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus eligibility. 

7. 

 
This provision remained in the Personnel Manual on page 15 of Article 1.G. until Change 41 was 
published in 2007.9  In Change 41 of the Personnel Manual, which is still in effect, all of page 15 
of Article 1.G. is missing.  Upon inquiry by the BCMR staff, the Personnel Service Center inves-
tigated  and  reported  that  the  loss  of  page  15  of  Article  1.G.  from  the  Personnel  Manual  was 
inadvertent, that the regulations on that page are still in effect, and that they will be returned to 
the Personnel Manual in its next publication. 
 
 
Because  Article  1.G.20.2.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  is  still  in  effect,  the  Board 
finds that in accordance with that article and Article 3.C.5.6. of the Personnel Manual, the appli-
cant  was  authorized  to  cancel  his  one-year  extension  before  it  became  operative  on  October  2, 
2009, by reenlisting for a longer period to qualify for an SRB under ALCOAST 353/09.  More-
over, the applicant’s reenlistment contract shows that he was erroneously advised to reenlist for 
the SRB on September 4, 2009, when the SRB program was suspended pursuant to ALCOAST 
393/09.  Had he been accurately advised about his SRB eligibility, as required by Article 3.C.3. 
of  the  Personnel  Manual,  he  would  have  reenlisted  on  October  2,  2009,  so  that  he  would  be 
entitled to the SRB and not have any previously obligated service remaining to run on his prior 
enlistment, which would reduce his SRB.10  The Board notes that the applicant asked to be reen-

                                                 
8 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6A,  PERSONNEL  MANUAL,  Art. 3.C.5.6. (Change 37, Oct. 
21, 2002).  Before Change 37 in 2002, the rules for SRBs were published in COMDTINST 7220.33. 
9 PERSMAN, Art. 1.G. 
10 PERSMAN, Art. 3.C.7. (stating that SRBs are paid only for months of service newly obligated under the contract 
on  which  the  SRB  is  promised).    SRBs  are  calculated  by  multiplying  a  member’s  monthly  base  pay  by  the 

 

 

8. 

9. 

listed on October 1, 2009.  However, October 1, 2009, was the last day of the applicant’s prior 
enlistment, and under Article 3.C.7.2. of the Personnel Manual, even a single day of previously 
obligated  service  counts  as  an  entire  month  and  thus  reduces  the  member’s  SRB  by  an  entire 
month unless the last day of the member’s enlistment is a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.11  
October 1, 2009, was a Thursday and not a federal holiday.  Therefore, if the applicant had been 
properly  counseled  about  his  SRB  eligibility,  he  would  have  reenlisted  on  Friday,  October  2, 
2009, to avoid having his SRB reduced by a month of previously obligated service. 
 
 
The JAG noted that when the applicant received his transfer orders in December 
2008,  he  should  have  been  required  to  obligate  four  years  of  additional  service,  instead  of  just 
one year, before executing the transfer.  However, the Coast Guard transferred the applicant with 
only one year of additional service in his record in accordance with the rule that usually applies 
to members with more than six years of service.12  Although the applicant’s transfer orders stated 
that he should have four years of obligated service, the Board does not correct records contrary 
to the requests and interests of applicants.13  Therefore, the Board will not correct the term of the 
applicant’s  extension  from  one  year  to  four  because  he  has  already  been  transferred  and  reen-
listed,  and  such  a  correction  would  serve  no  purpose  except  to  reduce  his  SRB  by  two-thirds 
because, with a four-year extension in his record, his SRB for reenlisting for six years would be 
based on only two years of newly obligated service.14 
 
 
Finally, the Board notes that the purpose of the applicant’s one-year extension is 
erroneous.  Although both he and the JAG stated that the purpose of the extension was to obli-
gate required service for his transfer to the training center, the contract shows that he signed it “at 
request  of  individual.”    It  is  important  for  the  purpose  to  be  noted  correctly  on  the  extension 
contract because under Article 3.C.5.6. of the Personnel Manual, only extension contracts of two 
years or less that are required “for transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance” can be 
canceled without a reduction of the member’s SRB.15 
 
 
The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  not 
properly counseled about his SRB eligibility in September 2009 and that if he had been properly 
counseled,  he  would  have  waited  until  October  2,  2009,  and  then  canceled  the  extension  by 
reenlisting for six years for an SRB based on 72 months of newly obligated service.   

10. 

                                                                                                                                                             
authorized SRB multiple for the member’s rating and by the number of months of service newly obligated under the 
contract and dividing the product by 12.  Id. 
11  PERSMAN,  Art.  3.C.7.2.  (“When  computing  the  additional  obligated  service  for  which  SRB  can  be  paid,  a 
fraction of a month will be rounded up to the whole month. … An exception to this rule, however, is members who 
are  discharged  no  more  than  7  days  early  because  their  period  of  active  obligated  service  expires  on  a  Friday, 
Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. In such cases, members will be considered to have completed the full enlistment for 
SRB computation.”). 
12  PERSMAN,  Art.  4.B.6.a.  (stating  that  members  in  “career  status”—i.e.,  with  more  than  six  years  of  service—
normally need to have only one year of obligated service before executing transfer orders). 
13  See  Friedman  v.  United  States,  141  Ct.  Cl.  239,  252-53  (1958)  (holding  that  “[t]he  Correction  Boards  were 
established  for  the  purpose  only  of  reviewing,  on  application  of  a  member  of  the  military  personnel,  a  military 
record  to  correct  errors  or  injustices  against  such  personnel  and  not  to  review  and  reverse  decisions  of  other 
established boards favorable to such personnel.”). 
14 See note 10 above. 
15  PERSMAN,  Art.  3.C.5.6.  (stating  that  only  contracts  of  two  years  or  less  executed  for  certain  purposes  can  be 
canceled without reducing the amount of newly obligated service under the new contract). 

 

 

 
11. 

 
 
Accordingly, the Board should grant relief by correcting the purpose of the one-
year extension contract to show that the applicant signed it to obligate service for transfer, and by 
correcting the date of his September 4, 2009, reenlistment contract to October 2, 2009, so that he 
will be eligible for and entitled to the SRB that he was promised when he reenlisted. 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  OS1  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted. 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct the reason for extension on his one-year extension contract 
(which would have become operative on October 2, 2009, had it not been canceled) to show that 
he  extended  his  prior  enlistment  to  obligate  service  for  transfer,  instead  of  at  “request  of 
individual.” 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  the  date  of  his  six-year  reenlistment  from  September  4, 
2009,  to  October  2,  2009,  and  the  one-year  extension  shall  remain  canceled  because  of  this 
reenlistment. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  him  the  Zone  B  SRB  he  is  due  under  ALCOAST  353/09 

based on 72 months of newly obligated service as a result of these corrections. 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger