He alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. His record does not contain documentation of SRB counseling prior to his 10th anniversary, and a letter signed by his supervisor states that he was not counseled about his eligibility. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not properly counseled.
2002-030 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for four years on July 9, 2001, his tenth-year anniversary on active duty, to obtain a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). He further alleged that if he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted on his tenth service anniversary for four years to receive the SRB. There is no documentation of tenth anniversary SRB counseling in the applicant’s record.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. On June 28, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper counseling concerning his eligibility for an SRB. The Board finds that the applicant has proved that he was not properly counseled and that, had he been, he...
He also alleged that during this time, he was away from his servicing personnel reporting unit (PERSRU) and did not receive counseling about his eligibility to reenlist for an SRB on September 17, 2001, his tenth anniversary on active duty. The applicant alleged that, had he been counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years in order to obtain a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 198/01. [ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] ORDER The six-month extension agreement, dated April 25, 2001 but...
The Chief Counsel contended that the Board should find that the Coast Guard had no duty to counsel the applicant regarding the potential effect of his April 30, 1997 reenlistment on future SRB eligibility. of the Personnel Manual provides that members who receive PCS orders must be counseled about obligated service requirements and sign a page 7 documenting that counseling. The Board finds that if the applicant had received proper counseling, as urged by the Chief Counsel, the required...
Under COMDTINST 7220.33 and ALCOAST 198/01, a member whose 6th anniversary fell between May 1 and September 30, 2001, was entitled to reenlist during October 2001 for a Zone A SRB. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not properly counseled and that if he had been, he would have waited until October 2001 to reenlist. Under ALCOAST 127/01 and the special provisions of ALCOAST...
In March 2001, the applicant was granted a humanitarian assignment. The Coast Guard did not approve the termination of his humanitarian assignment until February 11, 2001. His record shall be corrected to show that he reenlisted for six years on January 29, 2002, and that he was eligible for a Zone A SRB with the appropriate multiple.
2002-053 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted on his 10th active duty anniversary, which was September 24, 2001, to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). He alleged that he should have been counseled prior to that date that he was eligible to receive a Zone B SRB if he reenlisted on his 10th anniversary. On July 24, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s...
He has proved that he was not properly counseled and that, if he had been, he would have extended his contract for 9 months on April 1, 2001, instead of reenlisting for 6 years. His record shall also be corrected to show that upon the expiration of the 9-month extension, on June 20, 2002, he signed a new contract, which may be an extension of 2 or 3 years or a reenlistment of 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, at his sole discretion. If he extends his enlistment or reenlists for at least 3 years, the...
He alleged that he was erroneously told that he had to obligate additional service because he was being transferred, and he was erroneously promised a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 4, which he never received. His record contains a 6-year reenlistment contract dated January 31, 2002, which states that he was promised an SRB with a multiple of 4. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should not have been required to obligate addi- tional service to...
Annex T reads as follows in pertinent part: Prior to enlisting in the United States Coast Guard and receiving an Enlistment Bonus, I, [applicant’s name], understand that: 1. If I am a prior service member who already has the quali- fying skill, the first installment will be paid upon entry into the Coast Guard and the sec- ond installment will be paid after satisfactorily serving for six months in the designated rating. The Board finds that the Coast Guard owed the applicant the...
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted to receive the SRB.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX BCMR Docket No. He stated that the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes members who execute extension contracts to meet obligated service requirements and who desire to reenlist for a longer period to cancel those extensions prior to their operate dates and to reenlist for the longer period. His record shall be corrected to show that he...
He alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years to receive the SRB.
Therefore, there was no authority in June 2000 for the applicant to cancel the two-year extension he had already signed and sign a much shorter extension that would enable him to reenlist in July 2000 for the higher SRB multiple. The applicant has not proved that, prior to the end of his enlistment on June 24, 2000, he should have been permitted to cancel his two-year extension to extend for an even shorter period so that he could reenlist in July 2000 and receive the higher SRB multiple...
This correction will entitle the applicant to a Zone A SRB (selective reenlistment bonus) based on pay grade E- 5 rather than E-4. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief because the applicant's unit personnel incorrectly advised him that he would receive an SRB based on the E-5 pay grade. (1) of COMDTINST 7220.33 states that an SRB payment is based on "the rate of pay basic pay as of the day immediately preceding reenlistment."
He alleged that he was not timely counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted to receive the SRB.
2002-080 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct a 2-year extension contract in his record to show that he signed it so that he could accept transfer orders to a new unit. Currently, the Feb- ruary 1, 2000, contract indicates that it was signed at the “request of individual.” He submitted a copy of his transfer orders, which show that he was to report to a new unit by February 15, 2000. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief...
2002-082 Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by showing that he reenlisted on October 15, 2000, his tenth anniversary on active duty, for a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALCOAST 218/00. The applicant stated that he was not counseled about this SRB opportunity. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Board finds that the applicant is entitled to relief because the Coast Guard...
2002-085 Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX FINAL DECISION ULMER, Chair: The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted on August 27, 2001, his tenth active duty anniversary, for a Zone B SRB (selective reenlistment bonus). The applicant stated that the Coast Guard did not counsel him that he could reenlist on his tenth active duty anniversary to obtain a Zone B SRB. His record shall be corrected to show that...
This final decision, dated December 31, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling a three- year extension contract he signed on February 20, 2002, when he was in pay grade E-4, and reenlisting him for six years as of April 2, 2002, the day after he was advanced to pay grade E-5. (1) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction, the applicant could have signed a six-year extension contract on...
He alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. ORDER The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that on October 31, 2001, he reenlisted for 6 years to receive a 10th anniversary Zone B SRB as provided under...
On January 9, 2002, when he was already in Zone B, his command reenlisted him for 6 years based on the erroneous promise of a Zone A SRB. His record contains no entry documenting SRB counseling prior to his 6th anniversary. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief in this case because the January 9, 2002, contract is voidable since it was based on a false promise and because the applicant’s record includes no documentation of 6th anniversary SRB counseling.
This final decision, dated February 4, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling two short-term extension contracts and reenlisting him for four years as of January 20, 2002, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 under ALCOAST 127/01. of the Personnel Manual provides that, in deciding whether to recommend a member for advancement, “the rating chain must consider...
2002-091 Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by showing that he reenlisted for six years on November 4, 2000, his tenth anniversary on active duty, for a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALCOAST 218/00. He recommended that the applicant be granted relief, if he explains to the Board’s satisfaction, why he waited 17 months before filing an application with the Board. ...
In fact, throughout the four years during which the appli- cant was in Zone B, from March 5, 1997, through March 5, 2001, no Zone B SRB multiple was ever authorized for the MK rating.2 On July 16, 2001, after his command received notice that he was fit for full duty, the applicant was allowed to reenlist indefinitely in the Coast Guard. The applicant asked the Board to make certain corrections to his record so that, under ALCOAST 488/00, he would receive an SRB for a six-year...
He recommended that the Board void the applicant's March 22, 2002 reenlistment contract and reinstate his extension of enlistment due to expire on May 26, 2003. At his option, the applicant's reenlistment contract dated March 22, 2002 shall be corrected to show that he reenlisted on March 22, 2003 for 5 or 6 years. His record shall be further corrected to show that he is eligible to receive a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 329/02.
This final decision, dated February 19, 2003, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he would receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) for the full 72 months (six years) for which he reen- listed on July 18, 2002. 2002-098 p. 2 celed the extension contract, it would still count as previously obligated service and reduce his SRB by almost half: if he reenlisted in September 2002 before the...
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 22, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by awarding the applicant the promised bonus. The Board finds, and the Chief Counsel admits, that the Coast Guard erred when it told the applicant he would be eligible for a $3,000 Level II bonus, even though that amount was not authorized in ALDIST 224/98, the applicable ALDIST at the time of his enlistment. correction of his military record is granted, as...
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. XXX XX XXXX, XXX FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper counseling concerning his eligibility to reenlist on his 10th active duty anniversary to receive an SRB under ALCOAST 127/01. Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting his record to show that he...
He alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility to reenlist on his six-year anniversary and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Under COMDTINST 7220.33, members are entitled to proper counseling concerning their eligibility to reenlist to receive a Zone A SRB under ALDIST 184/99 and such counseling must be documented in their records. Since there is no such documentation, the applicant has proven to the satisfaction of the Board...
How- ever, he was still in pay grade E-4 in January 2002, so he was not eligible for and did not receive the SRB he was promised. On November 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the record supports his allegations. The extension would have ended on February 5, 2003, by which date he had been advanced to pay grade E-5 and was eligible for a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 329/02.
He alleged that pursuant to Coast Guard regulations, his command should have counseled him that he could receive a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 by reenlisting during the three months prior to January 22, 20xx, his sixth active duty anniversary. The CWO wrote that if the applicant had been aware that he could have reenlisted three months prior to his six-year anniversary, “he would receive an SRB payment, regardless of his selection to [xxxxxx xxxxxx].” The applicant also submitted a...
2002-116 ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct the date of an extension contract in his record from February 20, 2002 (when he was still a TC3), to April 2, 2002 (the day after he was advanced to TC2), so that he would receive the Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that he earned for that contract based on the higher multiple that was in effect for TC2s under ALCOAST 585/01. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the...
2002-120 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years, rather than for 4 years, on April 28, 2002, his 10th anniversary on active duty. He alleged that had he been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for 6 years in order for his SRB to be computed upon 48 months. On November 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the record supports his...
In addition, he alleged that, if he had reenlisted for 6 years on his 6th anniversary, he would not have been required to sign a 9-month extension contract on March 7, 2001. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years to receive the SRB.
The applicant was not eligible for an SRB until July 13, 2001, the date he was promoted to TC3. The Board is satisfied that if the applicant had been fully counseled about this opportunity, he would have extended his enlistment on July 14, 2001, rather than July 6, 2001, for at least 3 years to have the rate and time necessary to be eligible for the SRB. ORDER The military record of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, shall be corrected to show that he signed his extension contract on July 14, 2001,...
This final decision, date May 22, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by canceling the reenlistment contract he signed on August 15, 2000 and reenlisting him for six years to obtain a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). On May 19, 2000, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 218/00, which authorized members in the XX rating in Zone A to receive an SRB with a multiple of one-half,...
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. However, his extension contract also states that he is eligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 218/00 and that his “SRB will be based on 32 months [of] newly obligated service.” The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation of erroneous...
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: Final Decision BCMR No. 2002-138 May 30, 2003 Date SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked that his record be corrected in a manner that would permit him to receive the Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that was promised to him when he reenlisted on December 11, 2001. However, correcting the applicant's record in the manner recommended by the...
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli- cant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted to...
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On April 25, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request.2 The Chief Counsel stated that the “Coast Guard concedes that this Applicant met the eligibility criteria for an SRB at the time he reenlisted on 1 July, 2002.” The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant was eligible for the SRB because he “reenlisted within 3 months after the end of his enlistment/date after separation from active duty and...
He was not eligible to receive the promised SRB because on the date his extension became operative (May 28, 2002), he had more than 6 years of active duty service. On November 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted for 3 years on his 6-year anniversary. The Board finds that the applicant was not properly counseled, and that if he had been, he would have extended his enlistment on April 20, 2000,...
2002-152 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on May 7, 2002, his sixth active duty anniversary, to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). He recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on May 7, 2002, for the purpose of receiving a Zone B SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 585/01. ORDER The military record of , USCG, shall be corrected to show that...
2002-154 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted on his 10th anniversary on active duty, which he alleged was May 20, 2001, to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) in accordance with ALCOASTs 127/01 and 198/01. On his 10th active duty anniversary, February 26, 2001, ALCOAST 488/00 was in effect with no multiple for MKs in Zone B. (10) of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33 provides that “[t]ours of active duty in...
2002-159 FINAL DECISION The applicant asked that his record be corrected to show that on December 18, 2001, he reenlisted for six years to accept In Place Consecutive Overseas Orders (IPCT) rather than having extended for two years based on orders granting him a tour extension. Although the applicant asked to reenlist for six years, the Coast Guard recommended that he extend his enlistment for six years prior to January 31, 2002, with an operative date of March 29, 2003., to allow for the...
He alleged that, if he had been properly counseled, he would have cancelled his extension, prior to its operative date, and reenlisted for six years. On December 12, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that the applicant’s request should be granted because the record shows that he was eligible for the SRB. The Board finds that the applicant was not properly counseled, and that if he had been, he would have cancelled the extension contract he signed on March 19, 2001 and...
This final decision, dated March 26, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board either to order the Coast Guard to pay him the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that he was promised on his last enlistment contract or to release him from the contract so that he would be discharged. He alleged that he would not have reenlisted but for the promise of the SRB. Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977); Montilla v. United...
He alleged that he was erroneously counseled that he would be able to reenlist after he was advanced to XXX, cancel his February 20, 2002 extension, and receive the Zone A SRB based on pay grade E-5. Although the applicant needed to obligate service to accept his orders to transfer in June 2002, the record indicates that he could have and with proper counseling should have waited to sign a contract until after his advancement to XXX to get a larger SRB. ORDER The military record of , USCG,...
This final decision, dated June 19, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 based on his pay grade as a BM1 and calculated with a multiple of two for the four-year reenlistment contract that he signed on June 12, 2002, upon receipt of transfer orders to a new unit. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On December 23, 2002, the Chief...