DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2010-080 
 

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  7,  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  21,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  reenlist  her  on  June  12,  2009,  for  a  Zone  A  selective 
reenlistment  bonus  (SRB).1    She  alleged  that  she  should  have  been  counseled  about  her 
eligibility to reenlist for an SRB on that date under ALCOAST 286/08, but was not.  She stated 
that if she had been timely counseled, she would have reenlisted for the SRB.  Instead, she was 
not counseled about reenlisting until August 2009, by which time she was ineligible for an SRB 
because none was authorized for her rating under ALCOAST 353/09.   In August 2009, she was 
told that because a four-month extension in her record would run from September 13, 2009, to 
January 12, 2010, she did not need to reenlist until November or later.  Therefore, on November 
30, 2009, she returned to the administrative office and spoke to a different yeoman, who told her 
that she could  have reenlisted for an SRB in  June 2009 under  ALCOAST 286/08.    Ultimately, 
she reenlisted for four years on January 8, 2010, for no SRB.  

                                                 
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 September 13, 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years, through 
September 12, 2009.  On November 21, 2006, she extended her enlistment for four months, from 
September 13, 2009, through January 12, 2010,  to  obligate service for transfer.    On January 8, 
2010, she reenlisted for  four  years.  There  are no Page 7s (forms CG-3307) documenting SRB 
counseling in the applicant’s record.   

 
From  July  16,  2008,  through  July  15,  2009,  ALCOAST  286/08  was  in  effect  and 
authorized  a  Zone  A  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1.7  for  MK2s.    Under  ALCOAST  353/09,  which 
canceled  ALCOAST  286/08  and  went  into  effect  on  July  16,  2009,  no  SRB  multiple  was 
authorized for MK2s. 
 

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  alleged  that  the  applicant  was  not  authorized  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  in  June 
2009 because she was not then within three months of her end of enlistment (EOE) since she had 
signed  a  four-month  extension  in  November  2006  to  obligate  service  through  January  1,  2010, 
for  a  transfer.    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 the applicant’s situation. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  14,  2010,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard.    She 
disagreed  with  them  and  alleged  that  she  was  actually  eligible  for  an  SRB  under  ALCOAST 
353/09 too. 
 

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 applicant was timely.  
 
 
The applicant  alleged that  the Coast  Guard erred by failing to  counsel  her about 
her SRB eligibility in June 2009.  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 dis-
puted information is erroneous or unjust.2  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes 

2. 

                                                 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).   

 

 

that  Coast  Guard  officials  and  other  Government  employees  have  carried  out  their  duties 
“correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”3  

 
3. 

The  JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  was  not  entitled  to  reenlist  in  June  2009 
because she had extended her prior enlistment through January 12, 2010, and so was not within 
three months of her EOE.4  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 she was entitled to 
cancel her four-month extension before its operative date, September 13, 2009, by reenlisting 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, under Article 1.G.19., all extensions become operative following the end of an enlistment 
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. 
 

                                                 
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
4  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 
 
she  could  not  cancel  the  extension  in  accordance  with  Article  1.G.19.,  which  only  allows 
cancelations 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.,  members  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 commanding officers do not  want  to  retain  them.  This argument is  obviously  absurd and 
would  logically  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 2002,5 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. 

 
This provision remained in the Personnel Manual on page 15 of Article 1.G. until Change 41 was 
published in 2007.6  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. 
 
 
Under Article 12.B.7. of the Personnel Manual, members may be discharged up to 
three months before their EOEs for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  The applicant’s EOE 
was September 12, 2009.  Therefore, she could have been discharged and reenlisted as early as 
June 13, 2009.  Moreover, because Article 1.G.20.2.b. was still in effect, the Board finds that in 
accordance  with  that  article  and  Article  3.C.5.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant  was 
authorized  to  cancel  her  four-month  extension  before  it  became  operative  by  reenlisting  for  an 
SRB under ALCOAST 286/08 before it was canceled on July 16, 2009.   
 

7. 

8. 

Under  Article  12.B.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  members  are  supposed  to  be 
counseled  about  reenlistment  and  their  SRB  eligibility,  if  any,  six  months  prior  to  their  EOEs.  
Under Article 3.C.11., SRB counseling must be documented on a Page 7 in the member’s record.  
There  is  no  such  Page  7  dated  in  the  applicant’s  record.    Therefore,  the  preponderance  of  the 

                                                 
5 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. 
6 PERSMAN, Art. 1.G. 

 

 

9. 

evidence shows that she was not properly counseled about her eligibility to reenlist for an SRB 
under ALCOAST 286/08.  Had she been timely counseled about her eligibility for an SRB, the 
applicant  would  have  known  in  June  and  July  2009  that  she  could  cancel  her  extension  and 
reenlist for an SRB.  She would also have known that her SRB would be larger if she reenlisted 
on  July  15,  2009,  because  under  Article  3.C.7.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  months  of  service 
remaining to run on a prior reenlistment reduce an SRB paid for a new enlistment since SRBs are 
paid only for months of newly obligated service.7    
 
 
The  Board  notes  that  in  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  JAG’s  advisory  opinion, 
she alleged that she was also eligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 353/09.  However, under that 
ALCOAST, no SRB multiple was authorized for members in the MK2 rating as of July 16, 2009. 
 
 
Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s record to show 
that she reenlisted on July 15, 2009, for a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 286/08.  Although she 
reenlisted  for  four  years  on  January  8,  2010,  she  did  not  state  what  term  of  reenlistment  she 
would  have  chosen  had  she  been  allowed  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  in  July  2009.    Therefore,  she 
should be able to choose to reenlist for 4, 5, or 6 years.  
 
 
 
 

10. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

                                                 
7 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 
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. 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

military record is granted. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  her  record  to  show  that  she  canceled  her  four-month 
extension contract dated November 21, 2006, by reenlisting for a Zone A SRB on July 15, 2009, 
for a term of 4, 5, or 6 years, at her discretion.  Her January 8, 2010, reenlistment contract shall 
be removed from her record as null and void. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay her the sum due under ALCOAST 286/08 as a result of these 

corrections. 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer