Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-171
Original file (2010-171.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                         
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

FINAL DECISION 
BCMR Docket No. 2010-171 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant asked that his record be corrected to show his expiration of enlistment (EOE) as 
January 11, 2009, instead of November 9, 2011.  The applicant alleged, and the Judge Advocate General 
(JAG) agreed, that he reenlisted for 4 years on January 12, 2005, and so his correct EOE was January 11, 
2009.  However, an incorrect EOE date was entered into the Direct Access electronic database.  The JAG 
stated that due to the erroneous entry and the applicant’s reliance on that information, he was deprived of 
the opportunity to reenlist on January 12, 2009, for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).  Therefore, the 
JAG  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  by  directing  that the applicant’s record be corrected to 
show that his EOE was January 11, 2009, and to show that he reenlisted on January 12, 2009, for a Zone 
B SRB with a multiple of 1.7 under ALCOAST 353/09.  The applicant agreed with this recommendation. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

The JAG admitted, and the Board finds, that the Coast Guard committed an error by erroneously 
placing an incorrect EOE date in the applicant’s Direct Access electronic record.  The incorrect informa-
tion  deprived  him  of  the  opportunity  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  on  January  12,  2009.    The  applicant  is 
entitled to the relief stated below. 

ORDER 

The  military  record  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  including  his  electronic  record  in  the 
Direct  Access  database,  shall  be  corrected  to  show  January  11,  2009,  as  the  EOE  for  his  
4-year January 12, 2005, reenlistment.  His record shall be further corrected to show that he reenlisted for 
6  years  on  January  12,  2009,  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  1.7  under  ALCOAST 
353/09.  The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount due as a result of these corrections. 

 

 

    

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

                     

 
 
May 28, 2010 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*The  third  member  of  the  Board  was  unavailable.  However,  pursuant  to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.11(b),  two 
designated members constitute a quorum of the Board. 
 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 *  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

  

 
 

 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-080

    Original file (2010-080.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDT- INST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. Therefore, the preponderance of the 5 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. 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.

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2012-038

    Original file (2012-038.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 2, 2012, is signed by the three duly appointed members APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a chief operations specialist (OSC) asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is eligible to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 on his sixth active duty anniversary. SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-203

    Original file (2009-203.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, he stated, “Knowing that the SRB message [a new ALCOAST] was set to come out a month from that time, I opted to just extend for three months to wait and see if the SRB multiple might increase.” The applicant alleged that the YN3 told him that if he extended his enlistment for just 3 months and the SRB multiple changed under the new ALCOAST, he could cancel the extension by reenlisting to get an SRB after he arrived at his new unit. However, there is no Page 7 dated May 1, 2009,...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-217

    Original file (2010-217.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Members are placed on and advanced from the list in the order in which PSC receives the messages. This message stated in pertinent part: For members not in a retirement eligible status, or serving on an indefinite enlistment contract, the obligated service requirement for the purposes of PCS orders shall be executed within 5 days of orders issuance. PSC then ordered the applicant discharged under ALCOAST 173/10, for refusing to obligate service for PCS orders, although the...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-028

    Original file (2009-028.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A,” while those who have more than 6 but less than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone. The JAG argued that the applicant was eligible only for a Zone B SRB because he had completed more than seven years of active duty when he reenlisted, and pursuant to Article 3.C.4.b.3. The Board will exercise its authority and grant...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-258

    Original file (2009-258.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2009-258 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that is cited on his June 29, 2009, six-year reenlistment contract. of the Personnel Manual, was authorized to reenlist for a longer period to receive an SRB. (2) states that enlisted members receiving tuition assistance “do not incur a service obligation but must complete the course of instruction prior to RELAD, separation or retirement.” Therefore,...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-057

    Original file (2010-057.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard stated that typically when the proper personnel office receives a message about a member’s eligibility for advancement on a supplemental advancement list one month, the member’s name is added to the list the following month, and “the member is advanced the third month.” Therefore, when the applicant’s com- mand sent a message about his eligibility for advancement to an electronic address that had recently become...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-055

    Original file (2010-055.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence of the July 28, 2009, extension contract in the record submitted to the Board by the Coast Guard, which contains only his original 6-year enlistment dated October 29, 2003, and the 4- year reenlistment dated October 14, 2009, and contains no Page 7s documenting SRB counseling. The JAG alleged that the applicant could have reenlisted for an SRB on July 28, 2009, and recommended that the Board reenlist the applicant for 4 years on that date for an SRB calculated with...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2008-040

    Original file (2008-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 he received for extending his enlistment in order to transfer from the CGC ADAK, which was stationed in Bahrain, to the CGC RUSH is tax exempt. Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 3.C. of the Personnel Manual, members may not sign a reenlistment or extension...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2004-154

    Original file (2004-154.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that when he signed a six-year extension contract on May 1, 2003, he was counseled that he would receive an SRB with a multiple of 2.5. The Board also finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled at the time of his May 1, 2003, reenlistment, he would have had the following options: Reenlist as he did for an SRB with a multiple of 2.0 under ALCOAST 329/02; a. b. c. Be discharged from the Coast Guard. of the Personnel Manual, and at the termination of said...