DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXX, Xxxxxx X.
xxx xx xxxx, XXX
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2003-037
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)
that he was promised for the 4-year reenlistment contract he signed on May 24, 2002. 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. In support of his allegations, he submitted copies of his reenlistment contract, which
states that he was “entitled to an SRB Zone A with a multiple of [xxxxx]” and a page 7 entry, which documents
his December 17, 2001 counseling. 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. However, by May 24, 2002, that ALCOAST
had been cancelled and no SRB multiple was in effect for the applicant’s rating.
On May 30, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by
canceling the applicant’s reenlistment contract in light of the Coast Guard’s error of improperly counseling the
applicant. He asserted that even assuming arguendo that the applicant had detrimentally relied on the promised
SRB, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply because there was no legal authority to grant his request for the
SRB.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board finds that the Coast Guard erroneously counseled the applicant about his Zone A SRB eligi-
bility when he reenlisted on May 24, 2002. The Board further finds that although the applicant would not have
reenlisted on May 24, 2002 for an SRB for which he was not eligible, he would have either been allowed to
extend his original enlistment for at least 2 years or to be discharged since his original enlistment was ending on
July 6, 2002. Under Article 1.G.14.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, the minimum voluntary term of contract is a 2-
year extension. 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.
ORDER
The military record of XXX Xxxxx X. Xxxxx, xxx xx xxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that the
reenlistment contract that he signed on May 24, 2002 is null and void. At his option, the applicant shall be
allowed to extend his original enlistment for a term of 2 years, as of July 7, 2002. If he chooses not to extend for
2 years, the Coast Guard shall discharge him expeditiously.
August 28, 2003
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...
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,...
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...
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,...
2003-028 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by canceling the six-year reenlistment contract he signed on September 13, 2002, in order to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02. He stated that because the applicant previously received a Zone B SRB, the Board should void the applicant’s September 13, 2002 reenlistment contract. The Chief Counsel admitted and the Board finds that the Coast Guard erred by advising...
The applicant alleged that this correction would make him eligible for the Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) promised in his February 27, 2003 reenlistment contract. The Board finds that had the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years on March 1, 2003 for an SRB under ALCOAST 329/02. His record shall be corrected to show that he reenlisted for six years on March 1, 2003, rather than February 27, 2003, to receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of...
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...
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...
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...