DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2002-020
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years
after October 1, 2001, instead of on September 10, 2001. He alleged that he was told that, under
ALCOAST 127/01, a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) would go into effect for his rating on
October 1, 2001. Because his enlistment was ending on November 2, 2001, he intended to reen-
list after October 1st to receive the SRB. However, in September, his ship was deployed for an
extended period, and he was asked to reenlist early to facilitate the paperwork. The 6-year
reenlistment contract he signed on September 10, 2001, shows that he was promised the SRB
even though it would not go into effect until October 1, 2001.
On May 22, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board
grant the applicant’s request because the record supports his allegations.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under COMDTINST 7220.33 and ALCOAST 127/01, the applicant was eligible and
entitled to reenlist for an SRB at the end of his enlistment on November 2, 2001. He has proved
that he intended to reenlist to receive the SRB and was promised the SRB even though he was
asked to reenlist before it went into effect. The Board finds that the date of the applicant’s
enlistment is unjust and should be corrected so that he will receive the SRB.
ORDER
The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected by changing
the date of his 6-year reenlistment from September 10, 2001 to November 3, 2001, so that he
shall be entitled to the SRB under ALCOAST 127/01. The Coast Guard shall pay him the
amount due as a result of this correction.
Date
July 18, 2002
John A. Kern
Astrid Lopez-Goldberg
Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-057 p. 2
Coleman R. Sachs
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...
This final decision, dated September 23, 2004, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant reenlisted for six years on October 1, 2001, and was promised a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 1.5 under ALCOAST 127/01. According to the Coast Guard, the applicant did not have any of the authorized surfman qualification codes when he enlisted on October 1, 2001. contract showing that he was promised a Zone B SRB with a multiple 1.5. ORDER Derek A. Capizzi The...
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 alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. His record does not contain documentation of SRB counseling prior to his 10th anniversary, and a letter signed by his supervisor states that he was not counseled about his eligibility. 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.
He alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had, he would have reenlisted for 6 years. 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 timely counseled. ORDER The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that on October 31, 2001, he reenlisted for 6 years to receive a 10th anniversary Zone B SRB as provided under...
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.
2002-025 Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked that his record be corrected to show that he reenlisted for six years on October 1, 2001, rather than having done so on September 16, 2001. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief because unit personnel incorrectly advised the applicant that he would receive an SRB if he reenlisted on September 16, 2001, although...
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...
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,...
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...