Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-075
Original file (2002-075.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxx 

FINAL DECISION 
BCMR Docket No. 2002-075 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted on his 6th 
active duty anniversary to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) in accordance 
with ALCOAST 218/00.  He alleged that he was not timely counseled about his eligibility for 
the SRB and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years.  His record does not con-
tain any documentation of SRB counseling.  Letters signed by his commanding officer, a yeo-
man  at  his  unit,  and  others  indicate  that  he  was  not  timely  counseled  about  his  eligibility 
because  of  a  miscalculation  of  his  prior  service  and that, when the error was discovered, the 
applicant promptly stated that he wanted to reenlist for the bonus. 
 

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. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to timely counseling concerning 
his eligibility for an SRB on his 6th anniversary.  Under COMDTINST 7220.33 and ALCOAST 
218/00, he was eligible to reenlist for 6 years to receive a Zone A SRB on the anniversary.  The 
Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted 
to receive the SRB.  Accordingly, relief should be granted.   

ORDER 

 

 

 

The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that he 
reenlisted  on  his  6th  active  duty  anniversary  for  6  years  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  under 
ALCOAST 218/00.  Any other reenlistment or extension contract he may have signed since his 
6th anniversary shall be null and void.  The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a 
result of this correction. 

 

 
December 31, 2002 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 Angel Collaku 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas A. Phemister 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Mark A. Tomicich 

 
  



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-125

    Original file (2002-125.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In addition, he alleged that, if he had reenlisted for 6 years on his 6th anniversary, he would not have been required to sign a 9-month extension contract on March 7, 2001. 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. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years to receive the SRB.

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-028

    Original file (2002-028.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-008

    Original file (2002-008.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 12, 2002 is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was discharged, and immediately reenlisted for a period of six years on his tenth anniversary of military service1 for the purpose of receiving a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). (1) of Enclosure (1) to the Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs Administration) states that members with...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-143

    Original file (2002-143.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. 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. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted to...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-065

    Original file (2002-065.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility for the SRB and that, if he had been, 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. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years to receive the SRB.

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-063

    Original file (2002-063.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. 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. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted to receive the SRB.

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-021

    Original file (2002-021.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. XXX XX XXXX, XXX FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. 2002-021 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on November 17, 2000, instead of extending his enlistment on that day for six years to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALCOAST 218/00. On May...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-117

    Original file (2009-117.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2006-043

    Original file (2006-043.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 28, 2006, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a boatswain’s mate first class (BM1), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted on February 14, 2001, for a 6th anniversary1 selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).2 In addition, the applicant asked the Board to correct his 1 On a member’s 6th and 10th active duty anniversary, the member is eligible to reenlist for either a Zone A or a Zone B SRB if...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-114

    Original file (2002-114.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He alleged that pursuant to Coast Guard regulations, his command should have counseled him that he could receive a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 by reenlisting during the three months prior to January 22, 20xx, his sixth active duty anniversary. The CWO wrote that if the applicant had been aware that he could have reenlisted three months prior to his six-year anniversary, “he would receive an SRB payment, regardless of his selection to [xxxxxx xxxxxx].” The applicant also submitted a...