DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2001-005
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
This is a proceeding conducted in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 52.73 to consider a
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor:
technical amendment to the order issued by the Board in Docket No. 2001-005.
appointed members who were designated to serve as the board in this case.
This technical amendment, dated September 27, 2001, is signed by the three duly
HISTORY OF DOCKET NO. 2001-005
In Docket No. 2001-005, the applicant asked the Board to correct his record to
qualify him for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). He had been erroneously coun-
seled that he would receive an SRB if he extended his enlistment for 3 years on Feb-
ruary 18, 1999. In fact, he needed to reenlist (rather than extend) for at least 4 years.
In a supplemental advisory opinion for the case, the Chief Counsel of the Coast
Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by replacing the applicant’s 3-year
extension contract with a 4-year reenlistment contract and by voiding another extension
contract dated February 24, 1997, which would have been cancelled had the applicant
reenlisted on February 18, 1999. The Chief Counsel also stated that he would not object
if the applicant chose to reenlist for 5 or 6 years, instead of 4, to receive a larger SRB.
The Board received no response to the supplemental advisory opinion from the
applicant. On August 9, 2001, it granted relief by canceling the extensions and creating
a 4-year reenlistment contract dated February 18, 1999.
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
On September 24, 2001, the applicant telephoned the BCMR and stated that he
had recently returned from being underway for several weeks and had received the
supplemental advisory opinion and the Board’s final decision simultaneously. He
stated that if he had received the supplemental advisory opinion on time, he would
have asked for a 6-year reenlistment contract. On the same day, the Chief Counsel’s
office indicated that it would not object if the Board amended its order to lengthen the
applicant’s reenlistment contract from 4 to 6 years.
The military record of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, shall be corrected to
show that he reenlisted on February 18, 1999, for 6 years. The extension contracts he
signed on February 24, 1997, and February 18, 1999, shall be null and void. The Coast
Guard shall pay the applicant the amount due him as a result of this correction.
AMENDED ORDER
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1.
The applicant apparently missed his opportunity to respond to the
supplemental advisory opinion because of his cutter’s underway schedule. If he had
not been underway, he would have submitted a written request for a 6-year
reenlistment contract, as suggested by the Chief Counsel.
increasing the applicant’s reenlistment (and thus his SRB) from 4 to 6 years.
lengthen the applicant’s new reenlistment contract from 4 to 6 years.
The Chief Counsel does not object to the requested amendment,
Accordingly, the order in Docket No. 2001-005 should be amended to
2.
3.
Michael K. Nolan
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr.
David M. Wiegand
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor:
The applicant asked the Board for a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). A 3-
year extension contract he signed on February 18, 1999, to obligate sufficient service to accept
transfer orders shows that he was promised a Zone A SRB under the terms of ALDIST 290/98.
However, the extension did not become operative until the end of his enlistment on February
20, 2000, by which date he had completed more than 6 years of military service and was in
Zone B. Therefore, he never received the Zone A SRB. The applicant submitted an affidavit
from his commanding officer, who stated that the applicant had been erroneously counseled
and should have been advised to cancel a previous 3-month extension and reenlist to receive
the SRB.
On February 3, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the appli-
cant’s record be corrected to show that he reenlisted for 3 years instead of extending. On July
13, 2001, he revised his recommendation because further review revealed that in February 1999,
the applicant had to reenlist for at least 4 years to accept the transfer orders.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper counseling
concerning his eligibility for an SRB. The Coast Guard erred when it advised him that his
extension would entitle him to a Zone A SRB. If he had been properly counseled, he would
have canceled his 3-month extension and reenlisted for 4 years to accept the transfer orders and
receive the SRB instead of extending his enlistment for 3 years. Accordingly, relief should be
granted.
ORDER
The military record of XXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, shall be corrected to show that he
reenlisted on February 18, 1999, for 4 years. The extension contracts he signed on February 24,
1997, and February 18, 1999, shall be null and void. The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant
the amount due him under ALDIST 290/98 as a result of this correction.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2001-005
Laura A. Aguilar
Date: August 9, 2001______
James K. Augustine
Dorothy J. Ulmer
AMENDED ORDER The Board’s order correcting the military record of XXXXX, USCG, is hereby amended to read as follows: Her record shall be corrected to show that on December 24, 1998, she reenlisted The extension contracts signed by the applicant on September 30, 1998, and for six years for the purpose of receiving an SRB with a multiple of three under ALDIST 290/98. 1999-056 The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct her military record by...
On that day, the Chief Counsel alleged, the applicant would have been eligible for a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one.3 Therefore, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on November 9, 1997, for 6 years to receive the maximum authorized Zone B SRB for his rating. (4) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction states that, to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, members must “[b]e serving in pay grade E-5 or higher.” To receive a Zone A...
The applicant alleged that, had the ALDIST been properly issued at least one month before its effective date, he would have canceled the extension he signed on October 20, 1998, and extended his contract for just a month in order to remain eligible to receive an SRB under ALDIST 290/98 for three full years of service. On February 2, 1999, the applicant’s commanding officer wrote a letter to the BCMR “strongly endors[ing] his request that this matter be addressed by the Board.” He stated...
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...
1999-154 The applicant, a xxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to make him eligible for a Zone A Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)1 pursuant to ALDIST 226/97 by correcting his record to show that on June 23, 1997, he extended his enlistment for the minimum of two years, rather than reenlisting for three years, and that he later cancelled this extension to reenlist for six years after the SRB became effective on October 1, 1997. He alleged that he was “led to believe...
The contract shows his rank as XX2 and indicates his entitlement to an SRB based on a multiple of two under ALDIST 290/98.1 VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On April 19, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should be granted relief because there is no documentation of SRB counseling in his record and proper counseling would have informed him that he should wait a day before reenlisting to...
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...
This final decision, dated November 18, 1999, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The Chief Counsel further stated that the applicant knowingly extended his enlistment for six years to receive an SRB based on his additional obligated service. After ALDIST 135/97 became effective on July 1, 1997, the applicant was eligible to receive an...
The Chief Counsel also argued that, even if the Board found that the Coast Guard had erred and that the applicant would have extended his service if he had been counseled, the Board should still deny relief because, under the Supreme Court’s deci- 3 Although there are records for only two extensions prior to the applicant’s reenlistment on July 5, 1987, the applicant must have extended his first enlistment three times. Based on the applicant’s allegations, his military record, and the views...