DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2010-084 

 

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  27, 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  correct  his  record  so  that  he  will  receive  a  Zone  A 
selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 2.0 and based on 72 months of 
newly obligated service for reenlisting for 6 years on February 27, 2008.  He alleged that on Feb-
ruary  2,  2007,  he  was  erroneously  told  that  he  had  to  reenlist  for  at  least  3  years  because  his 
enlistment was ending on April 27, 2007.  He alleged that if properly counseled, he would have 
extended his prior enlistment for just 1 year, from February 27, 2007, to February 26, 2008.  He 
alleged that a 1-year extension was authorized under Article 1.G.15.a. of the Personnel Manual.   

 
The applicant further alleged that since he advanced to MK2 on August 1, 2007, he could 
have reenlisted for 6 years on February 27, 2008, for a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 304/07, 
which authorized a Zone A multiple of 2 for MK2s.  Instead, because of the erroneous advice, he 
reenlisted for 3 years on February 27, 2007, and  when he was due to transfer in the summer of 
2008, he was  advised to sign a 6-year extension  contract  for a  Zone  B SRB on May 22, 2008, 
because  the  extension  would  become  effective  on  February  27,  2010,  by  which  date  he  was  in 
Zone B.  Therefore, he alleged, because of the erroneous advice he received in February 2007, he 
missed the chance to receive a Zone A SRB.  
 
 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The  applicant  enlisted  for  4  years  on  April  28,  2003,  through  April  27,  2007.    On 
February 2, 2007, he signed a Career Intentions Worksheet, which shows that he acknowledged 
having received SRB counseling (although there is no Page 7 documenting SRB counseling) and, 
given the option of extending his enlistment for 2 to 6 years or reenlisting from 3 to 6 years, he 
planned  to  reenlist  for  3  years.    On  February  27,  2007,  the  applicant  reenlisted  for  3  years, 
through February 26, 2010, and sold 30 days of leave.  At the time, he was still an MK3 and so 
not  eligible  for  an  SRB.    The  Coast  Guard’s  database  mistakenly  shows  that  this  3-year 
reenlistment ran from April 28, 2007, through April 27, 2010. 
 

On August 1, 2007, the applicant advanced to MK2.  On May 22, 2008, he was counseled 
about  his  SRB  eligibility  on  a  Page  7  and  extended  his  3-year  enlistment  for  another  6  years, 
from  February  27,  2010,  through  February  26,  2016,  to  obligate  service  for  a  transfer  and  to 
receive a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.5 under ALCOAST 304/07 and based on 
72 months of newly obligated service.  At the time, the Zone A SRB multiple for MK2s was 2.0.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  June  3,  2010,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in 
which he recommended that the Board grant relief by voiding the 6-year extension contract and 
reenlisting  the  applicant  for  6  years  on  May  22,  2008,  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a 
multiple of 2.0 and based on 50 months of newly obligated service.   
 

The JAG also alleged that the applicant should have been counseled that he could reenlist 
for 6 years for a Zone A SRB based on 10 months of newly obligated service with a multiple of 
1.7 on his 6th anniversary, April 28, 2009, but was not.  The JAG did not address the applicant’s 
allegation that he could have extended his enlistment for just 1 year in February 2007.   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  July  26,  2010,  the  applicant  informed  the  Board  that  he  agreed  with  the  JAG’s 

recommendation.   
 

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 requiring him to reenlist for 3 
years on February 27, 2007, and by advising him to extend his enlistment for a Zone B SRB on 
May  22,  2008.    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 

2. 

 

 

information  is  erroneous  or  unjust.1    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.”2  

 
3. 

Article  1.G.15.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  February  2007  (Change 
40) stated that members could extend their enlistments “[f]or any number of full  years not less 
than two nor greater than six years, when requested by the member.”  Article 1.G.15.a.4. stated 
that in specific cases, the Commander of the Personnel Command could authorize an extension 
for just one year.  Article 1.G.2.a.1. stated that members with less than 10 years of service could 
reenlist  for  periods  of  3  to  6  years.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  erroneously  required  to 
reenlist for 3 years in February 2007.  However, his Career Intentions Worksheet clearly showed 
his option to extend his enlistment for just 2 years, in lieu of reenlisting, but he reenlisted for 3 
years.    In  addition,  although  the  applicant  alleged  that  if  properly  counseled,  he  would  have 
extended his enlistment for just 1 year, under Article 1.G.15.a.1., the normal minimum extension 
at the request of an individual whose enlistment was ending was 2 years, and he has not shown 
that the Personnel Command would have approved a shorter extension.  In light of his worksheet 
showing that he voluntarily reenlisted for 3 years in February 2007, the Board sees no reason to 
void his February 27, 2007, reenlistment.  However, the database erroneously shows that his 3-
year  reenlistment  ended  on  April  27,  2010,  so  this  error  should  be  corrected  because  a  3-year 
reenlistment contract signed on February 27, 2007, ends on February 26, 2010. 

 
4. 

Under  Article  3.C.4.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  on  May  22,  2008,  the  applicant 
was still in Zone A because he had less than 6 years of service.  However, his 3-year reenlistment 
ran through February 26, 2010, by which time he was in Zone B.  Under ALCOAST 304/07, in 
May 2008, MK2s were eligible for a Zone A SRB multiple of 2.0 or a Zone B SRB multiple of 
1.5.    Therefore,  on  May  22,  2008,  the  applicant  was  authorized  either  to  reenlist  for  a  Zone  A 
SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2.0  or  sign  an  extension  contract  that  would  become  operative  in  his 
Zone B and thus earn him a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 1.5.   

 
5. 

On May 22, 2008, the applicant had previously obligated service running through 
February 26, 2010.  Therefore, any SRB he received for reenlisting would be reduced by the 22 
months  remaining to  run on his  prior enlistment because, under Article 3.C.7. of the Personnel 
Manual,  SRBs  are  paid  only  for  months  of  service  newly  obligated  under  the  new  contract.  
Thus,  if  the  applicant  had  reenlisted  for  6  years  (72  months)  on  May  22,  2008,  he  would  have 
received a Zone A SRB based on just 50 months of newly obligated service.  By extending his 
enlistment for 6 years, he forwent his Zone A SRB but became entitled to a Zone B SRB based 
on 72 months of newly obligated service.   

 
6. 

Under Article 3.C.7. of the Personnel Manual, SRBs are calculated by multiplying 
(a)  the  member’s  monthly  basic  pay  on  the  date  of  reenlistment  or  the  operative  date  of  the 
extension  by  (b) the authorized SRB multiple by  (c)  the number of months  of newly  obligated 
service  and  then  (d)  dividing  that  product  by  12.    Using  this  formula,  it  appears  that  if  the 
applicant had reenlisted for 6 years on May 22, 2008, he would have received a Zone A SRB of 

                                                 
1 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). 

 

 

about $18,000, whereas by extending his enlistment for 6 years, he forwent the Zone A SRB but 
received  a  Zone  B  SRB  of  about  $23,000.    Therefore,  it  appears  that  on  May  22,  2008,  the 
applicant, not unreasonably, signed the contract that would get him the largest SRB. 

 
7. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  JAG  alleged  that  the  applicant  should  also  have  been 
advised of his Zone A SRB eligibility on his 6th anniversary, April 28, 2009, pursuant to Article 
3.C.9. of the Personnel  Manual,  which authorizes commanding officers to reenlist  members on 
their 6th anniversary for either a Zone A or Zone B SRB.  However, under Article 3.C.4. of the 
Personnel Manual, members may only receive one SRB per zone.  Therefore, if the applicant had 
reenlisted for 6 years for a Zone A SRB on May 22, 2008—obligating service through May 21, 
2014—he could not have reenlisted for another Zone A SRB on his 6th anniversary.  In addition, 
having  previously  obligated  service  through  February  26,  2016,  for  his  Zone  B  SRB,  he  could 
not  reenlist  for  6  years  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  on  his  6th  anniversary  because  there  would  be  no 
newly obligated service under the latter contract.  However, if the applicant had reenlisted for a 
Zone A SRB on May 22, 2008, he  could  have  reenlisted for 6  years  for  a Zone  B SRB  on the 
anniversary,  but  the  SRB  would  be  based  on  just  11  months  of  newly  obligated  service  from 
May  22,  2014—the  end  of  his  enlistment—to  April  27,  2015,  the  end  of  a  6-year  reenlistment 
signed on his 6th anniversary, April 28, 2009.  Under the formula for calculating SRBs in Article 
3.C.7., this Zone B SRB would have been about  $2,500.  There is no Page 7 in the applicant’s 
record documenting SRB counseling on his  6th anniversary, but  since he had already extended 
his enlistment through February 26, 2016, to receive a Zone B SRB and so could not reenlist for 
just 6 years, through April 27, 2015, to receive a Zone A SRB, he was not actually eligible for an 
SRB on his 6th anniversary.   
 
 
It is not clear to the Board that the Coast Guard has erred in this case with regard 
to  the  applicant’s  SRB  eligibility.    He  acknowledged  having  been  counseled  about  SRBs  in 
February  2007,  when  he  was  not  actually  eligible  for  an  SRB.    On  May  22,  2008,  he  was 
properly  counseled  on  a  Page  7  about  his  SRB  eligibility,  and  he  extended  his  enlistment  to 
receive the largest SRB for which he was then eligible.  This was a Zone B SRB, and in taking it 
he lost the opportunity to reenlist for a Zone A SRB, but as stated in finding 6, above, the Zone B 
SRB  was  significantly  larger  than  the  Zone  A  SRB  he  would  have  received.    The  JAG  has 
recommended  granting  relief,  and  the  applicant  agreed,  but  it  appears  to  the  Board  that  if  the 
relief recommended by the JAG is granted, the applicant may actually lose money.  However, the 
applicant may prefer to get the Zone A SRB he could have received on May 22, 2008, and hope 
for a larger Zone B SRB in the future, or get the Zone A SRB and a small Zone B SRB for a 6th 
anniversary reenlistment and have less obligated service.  Only he can make that decision.   
 

8. 

9. 

Although the applicant received SRB counseling on May 22, 2008, it appears that 
he  may  not  have  understood  his  options  on  that  date.    Accordingly,  partial  relief  should  be 
granted.  The applicant should be counseled about SRBs, about his options under this order, and 
about  the  amount  of  the  SRBs  he  might  receive  under  this  order,  and  he  should  be  allowed  to 
choose among the following options which might have occurred: 
 

  He  could,  as  he  did,  forgo  his  Zone  A  SRB  by  extending  his  enlistment  for  6  years, 

through February 26, 2016, for a Zone B SRB worth approximately $23,000. 

 

 

 

 

 

  He  could  have  reenlisted  for  6  years  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  based  on  50  months  of  newly 
obligated service, which would total about $18,000, and then he could have reenlisted for 
6 years on his 6th anniversary  for a Zone B SRB of about $2,500.  Under this scenario, 
his Zone A and B SRBs would add up to about  $20,500, which is less than the Zone B 
SRB he is already entitled to, but he would have obligated service only through April 27, 
2015. 

  He could have reenlisted for 6 years for the Zone A SRB of about $18,000, and then not 
reenlisted for the small Zone B SRB on his 6th anniversary but waited to see if a larger 
Zone B SRB would be authorized for his rating prior to his 10th active duty anniversary, 
which will be April 28, 2013.  However, the Board notes in this regard that no SRBs are 
authorized  at  this  time,  and  it  is  not  known  whether  another  Zone  B  SRB  will  be 
authorized  for  the  applicant’s  rating  prior  to  April  28,  2013.    By  taking  this  option, the 
applicant  would  risk  accepting  the  smaller  Zone  A  SRB  and  having  no  Zone  B  SRB 
authorized for his rating in the future. 

The Board notes that if the applicant has already been paid the Zone B SRB for his 6-year 
extension contract, choosing option (b) or (c) above could result  in a recoupment of part of his 
bonus. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record 

is granted in part as follows: 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  its  database  to  show  that  the  3-year  reenlistment  that  he 
signed on February 27, 2007, ran through February 26, 2010, rather than April 27, 2010, and that 
his 6-year extension dated May 22, 2008, became operative on February 27, 2010.  In addition, 
within 90 days of the date of this decision, the Coast Guard shall counsel him about SRBs, about 
his options under this order, and about the amount of the SRBs he could receive pursuant to this 
order, and shall, at his discretion, either 
 

(a)  make  no  other  corrections  to  his  record  so  that  he  will  be  entitled  to  the  Zone  B  SRB 

noted on his May 22, 2008, 6-year extension contract; 

 

 

(b) void  the  May  22,  2008,  6-year  extension  contract,  reenlist  him  for  6  years  on  May  22, 
2008,  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  under  ALCOAST  304/07,  and  reenlist  him  again  on  his  6th 
active duty anniversary for a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 286/08; or 
 

(c)  void the May 22, 2008, 6-year extension contract, and reenlist him for 6 years on May 22, 

2008, for a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 304/07. 

 
 

If he does not choose option (b) or (c) above, the status quo under option (a) shall prevail.  
The Coast  Guard shall pay him any amount that may become due as a result of any  correction 
made to his record pursuant to this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 
 

        

 
 Philip B. Busch