DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2003-014
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years
on November 3, 2001, at the end of his original 4-year enlistment, and that the short-term
extension contracts he signed before and after that date are canceled. He alleged that, prior to
the end of his original enlistment, he was never counseled that he could cancel the 9-month
extension he had signed in March 2000 to attend school and reenlist for 6 years to receive an
SRB under ALCOAST 127/01. In addition, he alleged that if he had reenlisted for 6 years on
November 3, 2001, he would not have been required to sign a 2-year extension contract on July
31, 2002. His record contains no documentation of proper SRB counseling.
The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that the “Coast Guard does not object to
granting the Applicant the relief he seeks.”
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under COMDTINST 7220.33, each member is entitled to SRB counseling, documented
on a “page 7” in his record, whenever he reenlists or extends his enlistment. The applicant’s
record has no such page 7s. Therefore, the Board finds that he has proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that he was not properly counseled. The Board also finds that, if he had been
counseled, he likely would have chosen to reenlist for 6 years on November 3, 2001, and cancel
his 9-month extension. Moreover, if he had reenlisted, he would not have been required to sign
a 2-year extension contract last July. Accordingly, relief should be granted.
ORDER
The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to
show that on November 3, 2001, he canceled his 9-month extension contract and reenlisted for 6
years, through November 2, 2007, to receive a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 127/01. The 2-
year extension contract he signed on July 31, 2002, shall be removed from his record as null and
void. The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of this correction.
June 13, 2002
Date
Felisa C. Garmon
Julia Andrews
Dorothy J. Ulmer
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...
Under COMDTINST 7220.33 and ALCOAST 198/01, a member whose 6th anniversary fell between May 1 and September 30, 2001, was entitled to reenlist during October 2001 for a Zone A SRB. 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 properly counseled and that if he had been, he would have waited until October 2001 to reenlist. Under ALCOAST 127/01 and the special provisions of ALCOAST...
He alleged that on December 17, 2001, he was counseled that he was eligible to receive a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 but was never paid the SRB. On December 17, 2001, ALCOAST 127/01 was in effect and authorized a Zone A SRB with a multiple of xxxxx for members in the XX rating. Accordingly, the Board should grant relief by voiding the applicant’s four-year reenlistment contract, signed on May 24, 2002, and by offering him the opportunity to extend his original enlistment contract for 2 years.
He also alleged that during this time, he was away from his servicing personnel reporting unit (PERSRU) and did not receive counseling about his eligibility to reenlist for an SRB on September 17, 2001, his tenth anniversary on active duty. The applicant alleged that, had he been counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years in order to obtain a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 198/01. [ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] ORDER The six-month extension agreement, dated April 25, 2001 but...
This final decision, dated February 4, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling two short-term extension contracts and reenlisting him for four years as of January 20, 2002, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 under ALCOAST 127/01. of the Personnel Manual provides that, in deciding whether to recommend a member for advancement, “the rating chain must consider...
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,...
The applicant argued that if ALCOAST 198/01 had been issued before he reenlisted on April 9, 2001, he would have elected to sign a short- term extension and reenlist in October 2001, at the E-7 pay grade to get a bigger SRB. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 29, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. The Chief Counsel argued that the record indicates that the applicant purpose- fully chose to reenlist on April 9, 2001, three...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2001-116
He further stated that he is not interested in receiving an SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 and that, if his record had been correct, he would have extended his enlistment for another two years in November 2001 to make his new end of enlistment November 30, 2003. Under Article 1-G-14 of the Personnel Manual, when his December 1, 1995, reenlistment ended on November 30, 1999, the applicant would have been 3. required to sign at least a 2-year extension contract, through November 30, 2001, to avoid...
This final decision, dated September 26, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by substituting the three-year extension agreement he signed on March 27, 2001, with a three-year extension agreement dated for May 2, 2001. of the Personnel Manual provides that members serving in a grade E-4 and above with fewer than six years of active duty may not accept PCS orders Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. The applicant extended his...
The applicant asserted that if he had not accepted the PCS orders he could have received a short-term extension under ALCOAST 198/01 from August 27th to September 30, 2001, and reenlisted on October 1, 2001, for an SRB multiple of 2. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had to have a minimum of one year of obligated service remaining in the Coast Guard upon reporting to his new unit. The Coast Guard could not have counseled the applicant on ALCOAST 198/01 because it was not issued...