DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2002-069
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
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 March 18, 2002, upon the
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application.
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated December 31, 2002, is signed by the three duly
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST, ALLEGATIONS, AND RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him the differ-
ence between the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) he actually received and a “correct-
ly calculated” SRB. He alleged that in January 2000, six months before the end of his
first enlistment on June 24, 2000, he was advised that, if he reenlisted, he would receive
an SRB calculated with a multiple of 4 pursuant to ALCOAST 184/99, which was then
in effect. Therefore, he planned to reenlist on June 8, 2000, to receive the SRB.
In February 2000, the applicant had to sign a two-year extension contract in order
to accept transfer orders. However, when he reenlisted for six years on June 8, 2000,
that extension was canceled. The applicant alleged that prior to signing the six-year
reenlistment contract, he asked if he could do anything to receive the higher SRB multi-
ple that had been announced in ALCOAST 218/00. In that ALCOAST, which was
issued on May 19, 2000, the multiple was raised to 6 for members in his rating who
reenlisted or extended their enlistments after July 1, 2000. The difference in total SRB
payments if he reenlisted in July rather than June would be about $18,600.
The applicant alleged that he was misadvised that he could not do anything to
receive the higher multiple. He alleged that he should have been allowed to cancel the
two-year extension, sign a one-month extension instead, and then reenlist in July 2000
to take advantage of the higher multiple authorized under ALCOAST 218/00.
The applicant submitted with his application a letter from his commanding
officer, who stated that there is no evidence in the record that the applicant was proper-
ly counseled about the higher SRB under ALCOAST 218/00. The commanding officer
also stated that if the applicant had been allowed to extend his first enlistment for just
one month, he could have reenlisted in July 2000 to receive the higher SRB.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On August 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the
Board deny the applicant’s request for lack of merit.
The Chief Counsel argued that, under Article 1.G.19.2.b. of the Personnel Man-
ual, members may cancel two-year extensions only for the purpose of immediate
reenlistment for an equal or longer period of service. Therefore, there was no authority
in June 2000 for the applicant to cancel the two-year extension he had already signed
and sign a much shorter extension that would enable him to reenlist in July 2000 for the
higher SRB multiple.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS
On September 3, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s
recommendation and invited him to respond within 15 days. On November 4, 2002, the
applicant replied stating that he would not respond to the recommendation.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
ALCOAST 184/99, issued on November 22, 1999, authorized an SRB calculated
with a multiple of 4 for members in the applicant’s rating who reenlisted or extended
their enlistments after January 1, 2000.
ALCOAST 218/00, issued on May 19, 2000, canceled the SRB multiples author-
ized under ALCOAST 184/99 as of July 1, 2000, and authorized new multiples. The
new multiple for members in the applicant’s rating was 6.
Article 2 of the SRB Instruction, COMDTINST 7220.33, provides that “[a]ll per-
sonnel with 14 years or less active service who reenlist or extend for any period, how-
ever brief, shall be counseled on the SRB program. They shall sign a page 7 service
record entry, enclosure (3), outlining the effect that particular action has on their SRB
entitlement.”
Paragraph 3.d.(6) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19. of the
Personnel Manual provide that extensions of two years or less may be canceled prior to
their operative dates to allow the member to sign a new, longer extension or reenlist-
ment contract to receive an SRB.
Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, entitled “Obligated Service for Assign-
ment,” states that assignment officers “normally will not transfer Service members E-4
and above, including active duty Reservists, with fewer than six years of active duty
unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service for a full tour on
reporting to a new unit. ... However, a member must comply with OBLISERV require-
ments before he or she will be permitted to execute his or her preferred assignment.”
Article 1.G.14.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that, unless required for
purposes of transfer or training or provided by special authorization from the Com-
mandant, members may not voluntarily extend their enlistments for any period shorter
than two years.
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 10 U.S.C.
§ 1552. The application was timely.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The applicant has not proved that, prior to the end of his enlistment on
June 24, 2000, he should have been permitted to cancel his two-year extension to extend
for an even shorter period so that he could reenlist in July 2000 and receive the higher
SRB multiple under ALCOAST 218/00. Under paragraph 3.d.(6) of Enclosure (1) to the
SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19. of the Personnel Manual, members may only cancel
two-year extensions prior to their operative dates in order to immediately reenlist for a
longer period.
Moreover, under Article 1.G.14.a. of the Personnel Manual, voluntary
extensions not executed for the purpose of accepting transfer orders or attending
training must be of at least two years’ duration. Therefore, even if the applicant had not
extended his enlistment to accept transfer orders in February 2000, he would not have
been able to extend his enlistment in June 2000 for any period shorter than two years.
The applicant has not pointed to any legal authority that would have
permitted him in June 2000 to replace his two-year extension with a shorter one, and the
Board knows of no such authority. The applicant had to reenlist for at least three years
by June 24, 2000, in order to cancel his extension before it became operative and receive
the SRB with a multiple of 4 authorized under ALCOAST 184/99. If he had waited
until July 1, 2000, the extension would have become operative and there would have
been no authority to let him sign any contract since his end of enlistment would then
have been June 24, 2002. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error or
injustice in how it advised him about his eligibility for an SRB.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his
5.
military record is denied.
Angel Collaku
Thomas A. Phemister
Mark A. Tomicich
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, date May 22, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by canceling the reenlistment contract he signed on August 15, 2000 and reenlisting him for six years to obtain a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). On May 19, 2000, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 218/00, which authorized members in the XX rating in Zone A to receive an SRB with a multiple of one-half,...
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...
In fact, throughout the four years during which the appli- cant was in Zone B, from March 5, 1997, through March 5, 2001, no Zone B SRB multiple was ever authorized for the MK rating.2 On July 16, 2001, after his command received notice that he was fit for full duty, the applicant was allowed to reenlist indefinitely in the Coast Guard. The applicant asked the Board to make certain corrections to his record so that, under ALCOAST 488/00, he would receive an SRB for a six-year...
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...
There is no administrative entry (“page 7”) in the applicant’s record document- ing counseling about his obligated service requirement prior to accepting transfer orders, as required by Article 4.B.1.i.1.b. There is also no page 7 documenting counseling about the applicant’s obligated service requirement upon accepting his PCS orders, as required under Article 4.B.1.i.1.b. The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his ORDER military record is granted as follows: His...
This final decision, dated August 11, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling his five- year extension contract dated April 2, 1999, and replacing it with a seven-month extension followed by a six-year reenlistment to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 calculated with a multiple of 2.0. to obligate sufficient service to transfer and reenlisted when the SRB was...
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...
the Zone A SRB that was authorized for members in the XX rating at the time under ALCOAST 184/99.2 Therefore, he extended his enlistment for only 30 months, which was the minimum amount of additional service that he had to obligate in order to accept his transfer orders and avoid discharge.3 The applicant alleged that he should have been advised and allowed to extend his service for 36 months to receive the SRB. If the applicant had extended his enlistment for 36 months in March 2000, he...
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,...