DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2002-137
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he extended his
enlistment contract for 36 months on November 30, 2000, instead of just 32 months. He alleged
that he was advised that he would receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) for
signing the contract but did not receive one because only contracts of at least 36 months’ dura-
tion qualify a member for an SRB. His extension contract and another administrative entry in
his record indicate that he was fully counseled about SRB regulations. However, his extension
contract also states that he is eligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 218/00 and that his “SRB will
be based on 32 months [of] newly obligated service.”
The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the appli-
cant’s request because the record supports his allegation of erroneous counseling.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper counseling about his
eligibility for an SRB, and only an extension or reenlistment contract of at least 36 months’
duration would qualify him for one. The record supports his allegation that he was
erroneously advised that he would receive an SRB for his 32-month extension. The Board finds
that, if he had been properly counseled, the applicant would have extended his enlistment for
36 months. Accordingly, his request should be granted.
The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that he
extended his enlistment for 36 months on November 30, 2000, instead of 32 months. The Coast
Guard shall pay him the amount due under ALCOAST 218/00 as a result of this correction.
ORDER
February 27, 2003
Date
John A. Kern
James G. Parks
Coleman R. Sachs
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. 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...
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,...
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...
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, dated November 17, 2005, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by replacing his six- year reenlistment contract with a six-year extension contract so that he will receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 calculated with 72 months of newly obli- gated service instead of 52 months. Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33 states that to receive a Zone A SRB, the member must...
2000-187 Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: SUMMARY OF THE RECORD ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 4 years on August 8, 2000, instead of June 29, 2000. His command erroneously advised him that he had to reenlist before July 1, 2000, to receive an SRB under ALCOAST 218/00. If he had been properly counseled, he would like- ly have reenlisted on August 8, 2000, to receive the SRB.
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...
He alleged that he was erroneously counseled that he could reenlist for only 3 years. His command erroneously advised him that he could reenlist for only 3 years when, in fact, he was eligible to reenlist for 6 years and receive an SRB with a multiple of 3 under ALCOAST 218/00. If he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for 6 years on September 11, 2000, to receive the SRB.
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...
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.