DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXX, XXXXX
xxx xx xxxx, XXX
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2003-080
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six
years on February 23, 2003, his tenth active duty anniversary, to obtain a Zone B selective
reenlistment bonus (SRB). He alleged that he was erroneously counseled that he would receive
the maximum SRB based on 72 months of newly obligated service if he waited until March 5,
2003 to reenlist. Although his March 5, 2003 reenlistment contract contains a promise of a Zone
B SRB, the applicant did not receive one because the contract was executed after his ten-year
anniversary date passed. Under Article 3.C.5. of the Personnel Manual, a member may reenlist
within the three months before his tenth active duty anniversary for the purpose of qualifying
for a Zone B SRB. He alleged that had he been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted
on or before his tenth anniversary on active duty.
On August 31, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that the record clearly
shows that the applicant was miscounseled because his unit failed to consider the applicant’s
prior active service. He recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show
that he reenlisted for six years on February 23, 2003, thereby qualifying him for a Zone B SRB
pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to proper SRB
counseling concerning his eligibility to reenlist for an SRB under ALCOAST 329/02 on his tenth
active duty anniversary. The Board finds that had the applicant been properly counseled, he
would have reenlisted on his tenth anniversary for six years to receive a Zone B SRB.
Accordingly, relief should be granted.
ORDER
The military record of XXX XXXXX XXXXX, xxx xx xxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to
show that he reenlisted for six years on February 23, 2003, his tenth active duty anniversary,
rather than on March 5, 2003, to receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of two under ALCOAST
329/02. The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of this correction.
October 22, 2003
Date
Felisa C. Garmon
Julia Andrews
Dorothy J. Ulmer
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from his unit yeoman who acknowledged that the applicant’s paperwork was untimely processed and that the applicant received no SRB counseling. He recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on January 4, 2003, for purposes of receiving a Zone B SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02. The Chief Counsel admitted and the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error in...
He recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s requested relief by reenlisting the applicant for 4 years on February 23, 1999, his 6-year anniversary, for a Zone A SRB and reenlisting him for 6 years on February 23, 2003, his 10-year anniversary, for a Zone B SRB. The Board finds that, if he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for 4 years on February 23, 1999 for a Zone A SRB and reenlisted again for 6 years on February 23, 2003 for a Zone B SRB. ORDER The military...
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...
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...
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. On June 28, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper counseling concerning his eligibility for an SRB. The Board finds that the applicant has proved that he was not properly counseled and that, had he been, he...
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...
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...
2001-132 XXXXX, XXXXXXX X. XXX XX XXXX, XXX SUMMARY OF THE RECORD GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on June 28, 1999, his tenth anniversary on active duty, for the purpose of receiving a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). On January 31, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was entitled to proper...