DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2002-060
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by voiding a 6-year reenlistment
contract he signed on January 31, 2002. He alleged that he was erroneously told that he had to
obligate additional service because he was being transferred, and he was erroneously promised
a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 4, which he never received.
His record contains a 6-year reenlistment contract dated January 31, 2002, which states that he
was promised an SRB with a multiple of 4. His original enlistment was not due to end until
September 2003. In May 2002, the applicant was transferred for a one-year period, through
May 2003. His yeoman submitted a statement indicating that the applicant was never paid the
SRB calculated with a multiple of 3.5 that was actually in effect for his rating on January 31,
2002.
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 erroneously counseled.
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should not have been required to obligate addi-
tional service to accept the transfer, and there was no authority to reenlist him on that day.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The record indicates that the applicant was erroneously required to reenlist because his
command believed that he had to obligate additional service to accept his transfer orders.
However, the applicant was only being transferred for one year, from May 2002 through May
2003, and his enlistment was not scheduled to end until September 2003. Therefore, acceptance
of his transfer orders did not require additional obligated service. Since he was not within
three months of the end of his enlistment, there was no other authority for his reenlistment.
Accordingly, relief should be granted.
The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected as follows:
The six-year reenlistment contract that he signed on January 31, 2002, shall be null and void.
ORDER
December 31, 2002
Date
Angel Collaku
Thomas A. Phemister
Mark A. Tomicich
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...
This final decision, dated March 31, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an operations specialist second class (OS2), asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 2.1 He alleged that, prior to being transferred to his current station on July 7, 2003, he was not properly counseled about his eligibility for an SRB when he signed a...
Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A.” Members who have completed at least 6 years but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. On July 1, 1999, after receiving transfer orders to a new station, the applicant was advised that an SRB multiple was authorized for his rating and that if he reenlisted or extended his enlistment for at least three...
The JAG stated that after a thorough review of the applicant’s record, he had determined that the most advanta- geous correction the Board could make would be to rescind its Order in the applicant’s prior case and leave in place his six-year extension dated April 13, 2006. The JAG stated that, contrary to the applicant’s belief, the SRB he would receive for the April 13, 2006, extension contract would be based on all 72 months of newly obligated service. Because an extension contract does...
This final decision, dated November 12, 2004, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 3.5, instead of the multiple of 2.5 that he received for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on March 21, 2004. When he executed the extension contract, the applicant was counseled that he was eligible to receive a Zone B SRB with...
This final decision, dated December 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with seventy-two months of newly obligated service.1 He alleged that he was miscounseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that if he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years on May 13, 2003, in lieu of extending, to...
However, instead of receiving an SRB calculated on all six years of the contract, he received an SRB based on only three years, because the canceled extension contract constituted previously obligated service that counted against number of years of newly obligated service on which his SRB was based. Article 2 of Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (the SRB Instruction) provides that “[a]ll personnel with 14 years or less active service who reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall...
This final decision, dated February 19, 2003, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he would receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) for the full 72 months (six years) for which he reen- listed on July 18, 2002. 2002-098 p. 2 celed the extension contract, it would still count as previously obligated service and reduce his SRB by almost half: if he reenlisted in September 2002 before the...
However, the Personnel Command denied the applicant’s request for an extension pursuant to COMDINST 7220.33.2 The applicant also alleged that if evidence of his successful completion of the Navigation Rules examination (NAVRULS) had been placed in his military record prior to his reenlistment, then he would have been eligible for an SRB multiple of 2 under ALCOAST 182/03. If the applicant had been told on April 29, 2003, that his request for a one- month extension was denied, he would have...
This final decision, dated June 19, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 based on his pay grade as a BM1 and calculated with a multiple of two for the four-year reenlistment contract that he signed on June 12, 2002, upon receipt of transfer orders to a new unit. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On December 23, 2002, the Chief...