DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2001-116
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section
425 of title 14 of the United States Code. It was docketed on July 31, 2001, when the
Board received the applicant’s completed application.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated May 30, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to cancel a 15-month extension contract he signed
on January 5, 1994. He alleged that the contract was intended to extend his first enlist-
ment, which was due to end on January 12, 1996. He alleged that when he reenlisted
for four years on December 1, 1995, before the extension became operative, it should
have been canceled. However, the extension was not canceled, and it appears in his
record as an extension of his new enlistment.
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
On January 13, 1992, the applicant enlisted for four years, through January 12,
1996. On January 5, 1994, he extended his enlistment for 15 months, from January 13,
1996, through April 12, 1997, to obligate sufficient service to accept transfer orders.
On December 1, 1995, the applicant reenlisted for four years, through November
30, 1999. His command marked the extension contract in his unit Personnel Data
Record (PDR) as canceled, but the cancellation was apparently never processed through
headquarters. Therefore, it acted as an extension of his 1995 reenlistment and made
February 28, 2001, his end of enlistment date.
On October 17, 2000, the applicant extended his enlistment for one year, from
March 1, 2001, to February 28, 2002. On February 14, 2001, the applicant canceled that
extension and voluntarily extended his enlistment for another two years, through Feb-
ruary 28, 2003. January 13, 2002, was his tenth anniversary on active duty.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On November 26, 2001, the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant
relief. He stated that the 15-month extension contract should have been canceled when
the applicant reenlisted on December 1, 1995. He recommended that the Board cancel
all of the extension contracts in the applicant’s record; create a new 2-year extension
contract to cover the period from December 1, 1999, to November 30, 2001; and permit
the applicant to reenlist on December 1, 2001, “for however many years he wishes” to
receive an SRB under ALCOAST 127/01.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On May 24, 2002, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard. He
stated that he agreed that his 15-month extension should be canceled and that a new
two-year extension should be created covering the period December 1, 1999, through
November 30, 2001. He further stated that he is not interested in receiving an SRB
under ALCOAST 127/01 and that, if his record had been correct, he would have
extended his enlistment for another two years in November 2001 to make his new end
of enlistment November 30, 2003.
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 appli-
cable law:
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
§ 1552. The application was timely.
1.
2.
Under Article 1-G-20.b. of the Personnel Manual, the Coast Guard erred
when it failed to cancel the applicant’s extension when he reenlisted on December 1,
1995.
Under Article 1-G-14 of the Personnel Manual, when his December 1,
1995, reenlistment ended on November 30, 1999, the applicant would have been
3.
required to sign at least a 2-year extension contract, through November 30, 2001, to
avoid being discharged. At the end of that extension, he would have been required to
and entitled to extend his record for at least another two years.
In light of the applicant’s history of short-term extensions, the Board is
persuaded that, if the Coast Guard had properly canceled his 15-month extension in
1995, he would have extended his contract for two years in 1999 and again in 2001.
4.
5.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, to correct his military
record is granted as follows.
ORDER
All existing extension contracts in his record shall be canceled.
His record shall be corrected to show that he extended his enlistment for two
years from December 1, 1999, through November 30, 2001.
His record shall further be corrected to show that he extended his enlistment a
second time, for another two years, from December 1, 2001, through November 30,
2003.
Angel Collaku
James G. Parks
Gareth W. Rosenau
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...
This final decision, dated September 12, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by either ordering the Coast Guard to pay a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB), which was promised to him on August 18, 2001 for a six-year reenlistment under ALCOAST 127/01, or canceling the six-year reenlistment contract. The applicant did not receive the Zone A SRB because at the time of his reenlistment, he had served for 7 years and 8...
Views of the Coast Guard On September 18, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board grant alternative relief in this case. The Chief Counsel stated there was no way for the applicant to satisfy the requirement to extend or reenlist for three years while at the same time preserving his opportunity for the Zone B SRB with a multiple of 2 that became effective on October 1, 2001. However, according to the Chief Counsel,...
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...
The applicant asserted that if he had not accepted the PCS orders he could have received a short-term extension under ALCOAST 198/01 from August 27th to September 30, 2001, and reenlisted on October 1, 2001, for an SRB multiple of 2. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had to have a minimum of one year of obligated service remaining in the Coast Guard upon reporting to his new unit. The Coast Guard could not have counseled the applicant on ALCOAST 198/01 because it was not issued...
The applicant argued that if ALCOAST 198/01 had been issued before he reenlisted on April 9, 2001, he would have elected to sign a short- term extension and reenlist in October 2001, at the E-7 pay grade to get a bigger SRB. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 29, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. The Chief Counsel argued that the record indicates that the applicant purpose- fully chose to reenlist on April 9, 2001, three...
2003-014 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years on November 3, 2001, at the end of his original 4-year enlistment, and that the short-term extension contracts he signed before and after that date are canceled. He alleged that, prior to the end of his original enlistment, he was never counseled that he could cancel the 9-month extension he had signed in March 2000 to attend school and reenlist for 6 years to receive...
He alleged that on December 17, 2001, he was counseled that he was eligible to receive a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 but was never paid the SRB. On December 17, 2001, ALCOAST 127/01 was in effect and authorized a Zone A SRB with a multiple of xxxxx for members in the XX rating. Accordingly, the Board should grant relief by voiding the applicant’s four-year reenlistment contract, signed on May 24, 2002, and by offering him the opportunity to extend his original enlistment contract for 2 years.
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...
This final decision, dated September 26, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by substituting the three-year extension agreement he signed on March 27, 2001, with a three-year extension agreement dated for May 2, 2001. of the Personnel Manual provides that members serving in a grade E-4 and above with fewer than six years of active duty may not accept PCS orders Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. The applicant extended his...