DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXX, Xxxxxx X
xxx xx xxxx, XXXX
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2002-168
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked that his record be corrected to show that he reenlisted on April 2, 2002 rather than having
extended his enlistment for three years and five months on February 20, 2002. This correction would entitle the
applicant to a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) under ALCOAST 585/01 based on pay grade E-5 rather than
E-4. On February 20, 2002, the date he signed the extension agreement, he was on the “supplemental list,” awaiting
advancement to XXX. He extended his enlistment to have a minimum of four years’ obligated service to accept
permanent change of station (PCS) orders. On April 1, 2002, he was advanced to XXX. On June 5, 2002, he transferred
to his new station. He alleged that he was erroneously counseled that he would be able to reenlist after he was
advanced to XXX, cancel his February 20, 2002 extension, and receive the Zone A SRB based on pay grade E-5. Under
ALCOAST 585/01, which went into effect on February 1, 2002, members with the rating XXX were eligible for a Zone
A SRB calculated with a multiple of one, but the multiple for XXX in Zone A was two.
On December 19, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief because
the record indicates that the applicant was awaiting advancement to XXX in February 2002 and that it is reasonable to
assume that he was not made aware of his full entitlement rights to a Zone A SRB as an E-5. He stated that the record
supports the applicant’s allegation of error.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper counseling concerning his eligibility for an
SRB. Although the applicant needed to obligate service to accept his orders to transfer in June 2002, the record
indicates that he could have and with proper counseling should have waited to sign a contract until after his
advancement to XXX to get a larger SRB. Accordingly, relief should be granted by voiding the extension of February
20, 2002, and allowing him to reenlist on April 2, 2002 for a greater amount of time to receive an SRB in pay grade E-5.
ORDER
The military record of , USCG, shall be corrected to show that he reenlisted on April 2, 2002 for
at least 5 years, and, at his option, for 6 years to receive the Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of two in effect for
XXX under ALCOAST 585/01. The extension contract the applicant signed on February 20, 2002 shall be null and
void. The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of this correction.
Julia Andrews
Felisa C. Garmon
Dorothy J. Ulmer
June 13, 2003
Date
On May 30, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that, if the applicant met the criteria for a Zone B SRB on the date of his sixth anniversary, the Board should grant the requested relief. The record indicates that the applicant met the criteria for a Zone B SRB on his sixth anniversary in that he was serving in pay grade E-5 and had not previously received a Zone B SRB. The Board further finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted on...
He alleged that, if he had been properly counseled, he would have cancelled his extension, prior to its operative date, and reenlisted for six years. On December 12, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that the applicant’s request should be granted because the record shows that he was eligible for the SRB. The Board finds that the applicant was not properly counseled, and that if he had been, he would have cancelled the extension contract he signed on March 19, 2001 and...
On September 10, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that although the record indicates that the applicant was a qualified boats coxswain and the page 7 entry was issued in error, granting the requested relief would not provide the applicant with an opportunity to obtain a Zone B SRB. He recommended that the Board grant alternative relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that in accordance with ALCOAST 127/01, he reenlisted for six years on December 2, 2001, his...
2002-152 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on May 7, 2002, his sixth active duty anniversary, to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). He recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on May 7, 2002, for the purpose of receiving a Zone B SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 585/01. ORDER The military record of , USCG, shall be corrected to show that...
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...
On December 12, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s requested relief because the record supports the applicant’s allegation that he was improperly counseled. The Chief Counsel admits and the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error when it promised the applicant a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 585/01 despite there being no multiple available therein for his rating. The Board is persuaded that had the applicant known that he was...
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...
He also requested that the Board correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on April 11, 20xx, his sixth active duty anniversary, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). One of the petty officers wrote that, based on the applicant’s having four years’ prior active duty service in the Navy, he could have enlisted for two years, instead of four years but was erroneously advised by his recruiter at the time he enlisted in the Coast Guard. The applicant...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-025
He also requested that the Board correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on April 11, 20xx, his sixth active duty anniversary, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). One of the petty officers wrote that, based on the applicant’s having four years’ prior active duty service in the Navy, he could have enlisted for two years, instead of four years but was erroneously advised by his recruiter at the time he enlisted in the Coast Guard. The applicant...
2002-120 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years, rather than for 4 years, on April 28, 2002, his 10th anniversary on active duty. He alleged that had he been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for 6 years in order for his SRB to be computed upon 48 months. On November 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the record supports his...