DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2002-166
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. The BCMR docketed the
applicant’s request for correction on September 9, 2002.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated March 26, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board either to order the Coast Guard to pay him the
selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that he was promised on his last enlistment contract
or to release him from the contract so that he would be discharged. The applicant
alleged that, in October 2001, a yeoman and a lieutenant at his unit told him that he was
eligible for a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one. Therefore, he decided to reenlist for 6
years for the SRB. However, he never received the SRB because he was not actually eli-
gible for it since he had not yet advanced to pay grade E-5, which is one of the criteria
for receiving a Zone B SRB. He alleged that he would not have reenlisted but for the
promise of the SRB.
In support of his allegation, the applicant submitted a copy of a reenlistment con-
tract dated October 2, 2001, which states in section 8.b. that “MBR IS ENTITLED TO
SRB ZONE B MULTIPLE OF ONE.” It also shows that he was a BM3 at the time. (In
addition to that contract, the applicant’s record contains a form CG-3307 documenting
the fact that on October 1, 2001, he received SRB counseling and was told that he was
eligible for an SRB with a multiple of one under ALCOAST 127/01.)
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 18, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that
the Board grant alternative relief. He stated that the record supports the applicant’s
contention that he was erroneously counseled. However, he argued, there is no author-
ity to pay the applicant the SRB he was erroneously promised. Therefore, he recom-
mended that the Board void the reenlistment contract and create an extension contract
to cover the period from the end of his prior enlistment on October 31, 2001, to such
time after the Board’s final decision when the Coast Guard will discharge him, as he
desires.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 23, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the
Coast Guard and invited him to respond. On January 24, 2003, the applicant respond-
ed, stating that he agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation and would like to
be expeditiously discharged.
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:
10 U.S.C. § 1552. The application was timely.
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of
1.
3.
2.
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was
erroneously promised a Zone B SRB, for which he was not actually eligible, in exchange
for his reenlistment on October 2, 2001. Section 3.b.(4) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB
Instruction, COMDTINST 7220.33, states that, to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, members
must “[b]e serving in pay grade E-5 or higher.” The applicant was a BM3 in pay grade
E-4 in October 2001.
The government is not bound by the erroneous promises of its agents.
Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477, 481 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Goldberg v.
Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977); Montilla v. United States, 457 F.2d 978, 987 (Ct. Cl. 1972).
However, the BCMR has “an abiding moral sanction to determine insofar as possible,
the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to grant thorough and fitting
relief.” Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959). The Board
agrees with the Chief Counsel that the reenlistment contract is voidable in light of the
erroneous promise. The reenlistment contract should be voided and the applicant
should be expeditiously discharged. An extension contract should be created to cover
his period of service from the end of his previous enlistment contract up to the date of
his discharge.
Accordingly, relief should be granted.
4.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his
military record is granted as follows:
ORDER
His reenlistment contract dated October 2, 2001, shall be null and void.
The Coast Guard shall expeditiously discharge him.
An extension contract shall be created to cover his service from November 1,
Julia Andrews
Felisa C. Garmon
Dorothy J. Ulmer
2001, until the day he is discharged.
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...
They shall sign a page 7 service record entry, enclosure (3) outlining the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” Article 3.b. The Board finds that although the applicant would not have reenlisted for six years for an SRB he was not eligible for on October 9, 2001, he would have either been discharged or allowed to reenlist for three, four, five, or six years, notwithstanding his ineligibility to receive a Zone B SRB. Accordingly, the Board should deny the applicant’s...
The JAG recommended that the Board deny relief, arguing that the applicant was not eligible for an SRB because he did not complete 17 months of continuous active duty prior to signing the contract, and because his June 28, 2009, contract was an enlistment, rather than a reenlistment since he had not served more than 12 months on extended active duty. However, the applicant was not eligible for an SRB for integrating into the regular Coast Guard on June 28, 2009, for two reasons: First, he...
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...
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...
On November 2, 2002, the applicant’s PERSRU recommended remission of the $5,748.29 debt in full, finding that “it is reasonable to assume [the applicant] was not properly counseled.” The PERSRU noted that the applicant’s record contains no CG- 3307 documenting SRB counseling upon his enlistment in April 1999 or at the time his change in rating was approved by CGPC. (7) of Enclosure (1) and Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 7220.33, the Coast Guard had a duty (a) to counsel the applicant about SRB...
The JAG stated that the applicant is not eligible to receive an SRB for reenlisting on April 1, 2007, because on that date he had never previously enlisted in the regular Coast Guard and he had served only five months on extended active duty under Title 10. He disagreed with the recommendation therein, stating that when his request to integrate from the Reserve into the regular Coast Guard was approved, he “was assured that everything had been taken care of regarding my prior service time...
This final decision, dated October 13, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was entitled to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 1.5, instead of the multiple of 1 which he received for signing a four-year extension contract on April 25, 2003. However, this ALCOAST was not in effect on the day the applicant signed the extension contract. Article 3.C.6...
Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A,” while those who have more than 6 but less than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone. The JAG argued that the applicant was eligible only for a Zone B SRB because he had completed more than seven years of active duty when he reenlisted, and pursuant to Article 3.C.4.b.3. The Board will exercise its authority and grant...
This final decision, dated April 11, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an xxxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) based on 72 months of newly obligated service rather than one based on just 67 months. of the Personnel Manual, members may extend an enlistment for no more than six years and the applicant had already extended his for ten months), but then he would have received...