DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
BCMR Docket
No. 2000-186
Application for Correction of
Coast Guard Record of:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
ULMER, Deputy Chairman:
The applicant, a food specialist third class (FS3; pay grade E-4), asked the Board to cancel the
six-year reenlistment contract he signed on March 23, 2000 and replace it with a short-term extension
possibly making him eligible for a Zone B SRB, if one is offered upon the termination of his extended
enlistment. The applicant entered into the six-year reenlistment on March 23, 2000 to accept
permanent change of station (PCS) orders. He was promised a Zone B SRB for this reenlistment;
however, he was not eligible for the SRB because he was not serving in pay grade E-5.
The Chief Counsel stated that the Coast Guard committed an error by promising the applicant
a Zone B SRB for which he was not eligible when he reenlisted for six years on March 23, 2000. To
rectify this situation, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board cancel the March 23, 2000
reenlistment contract and replace it with a 14-month extension, which would have been the
minimum period of additional obligated service required in order for the applicant to have accepted
PCS orders. This corrective action would allow the applicant to take advantage of a Zone B SRB at the
expiration of the 14-month extension if one is offered. The applicant did not submit a reply to the
advisory opinion.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board agrees with the comments and recommendation of the Chief Counsel of the Coast
Guard and finds that the Coast Guard incorrectly advised the applicant about his eligibility for an
SRB on March 23, 2000. Accordingly, the applicant's request for relief should be granted.
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record is
granted. His record shall be corrected to show that on March 23, 2000, he extended his enlistment for
one year and two months. At the end of this extension period, the applicant shall be given the option
of reenlisting in the Coast Guard. The reenlistment contract he signed on March 23, 2000, is null and
void.
*see concurring opinion
Michael J. McMorrow
Kathryn Sinniger
Nilza F. Velázquez
June 28, 2001________
Date:
Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-186
DECISION CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY
MCMORROW, Member:
result only, as reached by the other members of the Board.
The record supports the applicant's claim for relief. Therefore, I concur in the
However, I am of the view that the Board has not complied with its regulations
requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. This separate decision is intended to call
the Board's attention to that concern. I am of the further view that COMDTINST 1070.10C, as
presently read and implemented, does not well and efficiently serve Coast Guard personnel.
This separate decision also is intended to call attention to that concern. Both concerns are
commended, respectfully, to the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard and the Acting General
Counsel by copy hereof.
The administrative error (conceded by the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard in his
advisory opinion) occurred 23 March 2000, the applicant found the error 15 July 2000 and the
applicant submitted his application (DD Form 149) 8 August 2000. Since all dates fall within
a one year period, COMDTINST 1070.10C prescribes that initial responsibility for the
application lay with the Personnel Records Review Board (PRRB). The PRRB's mission is "to
recommend appropriate action on applications for correction or relief from error in the
records of Coast Guard personnel." Selective reenlistment bonuses of enlisted personnel are
not excluded from PRRB jurisdiction.
In instances of correction leading to full relief in the form of retroactive payment
where incentive pay has been delayed due to administrative error or oversight, the Congress
spoke in 1988.
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the Coast
Guard may authorize retroactive payment of pay and
allowances, including selective reenlistment bonuses, to
enlisted members if entitlement to the pay and
the instance of the application at hand.
(33 CFR §52.13(b))
Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-186
allowances was delayed in vesting solely because of an
administrative error or oversight.
(14 U.S.C. §513)
2.
The accompanying legislative report contained two crucial sentences on point.
. . . Current procedure requires cases involving retroactive
pay to be forwarded to the Board For Correction of Military
Records. The new provision will permit relief to be granted
in cases reviewed by the Personnel Records Review Board.
(House Rep. No. 100-154 on H.R. 2342 at 28)
The Board's regulations state, in pertinent part:
No application shall be considered by the Board until the
applicant has exhausted all effective administrative remedies . . ..
COMDTINST 1070.10C and the PRRB constitute effective administrative remedies in
_________________________________
Michael J. McMorrow
Member
2000-080 Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: SUMMARY OF THE RECORD ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years, instead of extending his enlistment for 2 years and 9 months, on September 29, 1999. He alleged that if he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for 6 years on September 29, 1999, to receive the SRB because at that time he only had three months of previously obligated...
This final decision, dated August 17, 2000, is signed by the three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, an xxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling a six-year reenlistment contract he signed on July 7, 1999. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On May 24, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant partial relief in this case.2 The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s reenlistment contract...
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...
(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...
He stated that “if proper counseling was done, [the applicant] would have cancelled the two extensions from her commanding officer 1 According to the SRB regulation, a member must enlist or extend for a minimum of 36 months to receive an SRB. He further stated there is no requirement that the Coast Guard re- counsel its members about a subsequent ALCOAST announcing new SRB multiples. (3), states, in pertinent part, as follows: “Members with exactly 6 years active duty on the date of...
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...
This final decision, dated December 30, 1999, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record by changing the reason for extension recorded on an extension contract he signed on September 10, 1998, from “request of individual” to “obligated service for transfer.” The correction would entitle him to receive a larger Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for a 40-month extension he signed on...
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...
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,...
2000-074 Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: SUMMARY OF THE RECORD ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years, instead of extending his enlistment for 3 years, on January 15, 1999, prior to his sixth active duty anniversary on January 19, 1999. On August 22, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted for 6...