Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-024
Original file (2000-024.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-024 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 November 29, 1999, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  13,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
The  applicant,  axxxxxxxxxxxxxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the 
Board to correct his military record to show that he was discharged and reenlisted for a 
term  of  six  years  on  January  17,  1999,  his  tenth  anniversary  on  active  duty.    The 
correction  would  make  him  eligible  to  receive  a  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB) 
under ALDIST 290/98. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that he was never counseled concerning SRBs during the 
three months prior to his tenth anniversary on active duty.  He alleged that such coun-
seling was required by COMDTINST 7220.33 and that if he had received it, he would 
have reenlisted for six years so as to be eligible for the SRB.   

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 17, 1989, for a term of four 
years.  On January 17, 1995, he reenlisted for three years.1  On June 16, 1998, he reenlist-
ed for three years, through June 15, 2001.2  The applicant’s tenth anniversary on active 
duty  fell  on  January  17,  1999.    There  is  no  documentation  in  his  record  of  any  SRB 
counseling since 1995.    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 26, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant the applicant’s request.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the record supports the applicant’s allegations of 
error.  He also stated that the applicant took prompt action to rectify the error and is 
willing to reenlist for six years in consideration for the SRB.  Therefore, the Chief Coun-
sel recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting his record to show that he 
reenlisted for six years on January 17, 1999, to receive a Zone B SRB3 calculated with a 
multiple of 1 in accordance with the terms of ALDIST 290/98. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  June  27,  2000,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 
 
Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The  applicant  did  not 
respond. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Section 3.b.(3) of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment 
Bonus Programs Administration) states that to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, a member 
must “[h]ave completed at least 6 but not more than 10 years active service on the date 
of reenlistment or the operative date of the extension.” 
 
 
Section 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) states that “[c]ommanding officers are authorized 
to effect early discharge and reenlist members within 3 months prior to their 6th, 10th, 

                                                 
1    Although  there  is  no  paper  copy  of  an  enlistment  or  extension  of  enlistment  contract  covering  the 
period January 17, 1993, through January 16, 1995, in the applicant’s record at Coast Guard headquarters, 
it is clear from his record that he remained on active duty continuously during this period. 
2    Although  there  is  no  paper  copy  of  an  enlistment  or  extension  of  enlistment  contract  covering  the 
period January 17, 1998, through June 15, 1998, in the applicant’s record at Coast Guard headquarters, it 
is clear from his record that he remained on active duty continuously during this period. 
 
3  SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the  length  of  the  period  of 
reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s 
particular skills.  Coast Guard members who have served between 6 and 10 years on active duty are in 
“Zone B.” 

or 14th year active service anniversary dates (not to be confused with the normal expi-
ration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respec-
tively.  In such cases, SRB payments will be reduced by any portion of unserved service 
obligation.” 
 
 
Enclosure (3) to the instruction states that during the three months prior to their 
6th, 10th, and 14th anniversary dates, members must be counseled concerning their eli-
gibility for an SRB.  The counseling must be memorialized in their records with a Form 
CG-3307 signed by the member. 

 
ALDIST 290/98, issued on November 24, 1998, authorized SRBs for members in 
the xx rating in Zone B who reenlisted or extended their enlistments after November 25, 
1998,  received  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1.    ALDIST  290/98  remained  in  effect  until 
June 14, 1999. 
 

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 section 1552 

1. 

2. 

of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

3. 

The applicant alleged that he was not properly counseled about his eligi-
bility  to  receive  an  SRB  by  requesting  discharge  and  reenlistment  during  the  three 
months prior to his tenth anniversary on active duty, January 17, 1999.  He alleged that, 
had he been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years to become eligi-
ble for the SRB.  
 
Under  Enclosure  (3)  to  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  applicant 
 
had a right to be counseled concerning SRBs prior to his tenth active duty anniversary, 
January 17, 1999.  There is no evidence that the Coast Guard counseled the applicant 
concerning his eligibility for an SRB during the three months prior to that date.  Had he 
been so counseled, a Form CG-3307 should appear in his record, but there is none.   
  

Under Section 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) to the instruction, the applicant was 
eligible  to  be  discharged  on  January  17,  1999,  his  tenth  active  duty  anniversary,  and 
immediately reenlisted to qualify for a Zone B SRB.  Under ALDIST 290/98, he would 
have received a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 1 for his newly obligated service.  
 

4. 

5. 

The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant the applicant relief 
by correcting his record to show that on January 17, 1999, he reenlisted for a term of six 
years.  The applicant did not object to this recommendation. 

The Coast Guard erred by not properly counseling the applicant concern-
ing his eligibility for an SRB on his tenth active duty anniversary.  Had he been prop-
erly counseled, the Board is persuaded that he would have reenlisted for six years to 
receive  the  maximum  possible  SRB,  subject  to  reduction  for  the  remaining  obligated 
service on his previous enlistment. 

  
6. 

 
7. 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

hereby granted. 

 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  his  tenth  anniversary  on  active 
duty, January 17, 1999, he was discharged and immediately reenlisted for a term of six 
years  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  a  Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  1  in 
accordance with the terms of ALDIST 290/98. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  any  sum  he  is  due  as  a  result  of  this 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
John A. Kern 

 

 
Charles Medalen 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 
 

correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-021

    Original file (2000-021.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated July 13, 2000, is signed by the three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he was discharged and reenlisted for a term of six years on March 13, 1999, his tenth anniversary on active duty. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On June 26, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request. The Chief Counsel...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-178

    Original file (1999-178.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 18, 2000, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to make him eligible for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 under ALDIST 290/98. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On March 28, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request for relief by reenlisting him for six years as of April 19, 1999. The Chief...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-182

    Original file (1999-182.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated August 17, 2000, is signed by three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. 1999-182 The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he reenlisted for four years on his sixth anniversary on active duty, May 10, 1999, to receive a Zone A selective...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-105

    Original file (1999-105.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. This final decision, dated February 10, 2000, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, an xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he was discharged on his 6-year active duty anniversary date, April 1, 1999, and immediately reenlisted for a term of 6 years. Coast...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-078

    Original file (1999-078.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (3) of COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant’s extension did not qualify her to receive an SRB because, although it was signed on January 21, 1998, it did not become operative until October 31, 1998, almost six months past her tenth anniversary on active duty. (3) of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs Administration) states that to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, a member must “[h]ave completed at least 6 but not more than 10 years active service on the...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-069

    Original file (2000-069.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On August 16, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years on June 3, 1999. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to counseling concerning his eligibility to be discharged prior to his tenth active duty anniversary, June 29, 1999, in order to reenlist and receive a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 290/98. It shall be corrected to show that he was discharged and...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-039

    Original file (2000-039.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He alleged that if he had known about the requirement that he be in pay grade E-5 to receive a Zone B SRB, he would not have reenlisted for six years but would have 1 SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the length of the period of reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the multiple used to calculate the bonus. Coast Guard members in pay grade E-5 and...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-117

    Original file (2009-117.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Coast Guard erred when it counseled the applicant that he was eligible to receive a Zone B SRB for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on January 31, 2002. of the Personnel Manual, which show that a member’s SRB equals his monthly basic pay, multiplied by the SRB multiple authorized under the ALCOAST in effect, multiplied the number of months of service newly obligated under the contract, and divided by 12, if the appli- cant had reenlisted for four years on this 6th anniversary...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-055

    Original file (1999-055.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, on November 16, 1998, the applicant signed a third extension contract, extending his enlistment for two years and six months, through February 3, 200x. The Chief Counsel explained that the applicant’s PCS orders to xxxxx stated that he was required to have at least three years of obligated service before reporting to his new unit. Unless otherwise indicated, they are required to have one year of OBLI- SERV remaining upon reporting to the new unit.” ALDIST 290/98, issued on...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2005-121

    Original file (2005-121.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated April 5, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he will be entitled to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) for reenlisting on his sixth active duty anniversary in May 2001 and a Zone B SRB for reenlisting on his tenth active duty anniversary in May 2005.1 The applicant alleged that he was eligible for a Zone A SRB when he extended his original...