DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2003-129
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by voiding a 6-year reenlistment
contract that he signed on February 24, 2003. He alleged that he was told that he had to reenlist
to obligate sufficient service to accept transfer orders and that if he reenlisted, he would receive
a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) in accordance with ALCOAST 329/02. The appli-
cant’s reenlistment contract dated February 24, 2003, and another administrative entry in his
record show that he was told that he would be entitled to a Zone A SRB if he reenlisted. He
alleged that he reenlisted but did not receive the SRB because he had not passed the Navigation
Rules exam. He alleged that he later learned that he had only needed to extend his enlistment
for 2 years to meet his obligated service requirement.
The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the
applicant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was erroneously coun-
seled that he would receive the SRB if he reenlisted. He further stated that in February 2003,
the applicant was required only to extend his enlistment for 2 years to obligate sufficient service
to accept his transfer orders.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under Article 3.C. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to proper coun-
seling concerning his eligibility for an SRB. Under ALCOAST 329/02, BM3s, such as the appli-
cant, had to have passed a Navigation Rules exam to qualify for the SRB. The applicant has
proved that he was erroneously counseled that he was eligible for an SRB on February 24, 2003,
and that if he had been properly counseled, he would have extended his enlistment for 2 years
instead of reenlisting for 6. Accordingly, relief should be granted.
The military record of BM3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that
he extended his enlistment contract for 2 years on February 24, 2003. The 6-year reenlistment
contract dated February 24, 2003, shall be removed from his record as null and void.
ORDER
April 29, 2004____
Date
____
Jordan S. Fried
J. Carter Robertson
Kathryn Sinniger
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...
The Coast Guard erred when it counseled the applicant that he was eligible to receive a Zone B SRB for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on January 31, 2002. of the Personnel Manual, which show that a member’s SRB equals his monthly basic pay, multiplied by the SRB multiple authorized under the ALCOAST in effect, multiplied the number of months of service newly obligated under the contract, and divided by 12, if the appli- cant had reenlisted for four years on this 6th anniversary...
Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A.” Members who have completed at least 6 years but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. On July 1, 1999, after receiving transfer orders to a new station, the applicant was advised that an SRB multiple was authorized for his rating and that if he reenlisted or extended his enlistment for at least three...
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...
By that time, ALCOAST 182/03 was in effect and the SRB multiple for MK2s in Zone A was just 1.5.5 In support of his allegations, the applicant pointed out that his command failed to have him sign a CG-3307 (“page 7”) to acknowledge receiving proper SRB counseling when he signed the one-year extension contract on November 18, 2002. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was miscounseled in November 2002 that, if he extended...
The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not timely counseled. Under ALDIST 184/99, he was eligible to reenlist for 3, 4, 5, or 6 years to receive a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 3. If he had done so, he would not have been eligible to reenlist for 4 years on June 13, 2000, but he would have been eligible to reenlist on his 10th anniversary for a Zone B SRB with a multiple...
The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard (TJAG) recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the record supports his allegation that he was not properly counseled. Under Article 3.C.5.6., on June 8, 2004, the applicant would have been entitled to cancel his one-month extension and reenlist for 6 years to receive the SRB with a multiple of 2.5. The Board finds that, if the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have extended his enlistment for one month on...
This final decision, dated May 29, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a first class gunner’s mate (GM1/E-6), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on both his sixth and tenth active duty anniversa- ries to receive Zone A and Zone B selective reenlistment bonuses (SRBs).1 The applicant alleged that on November 16, 2006, he learned from his unit’s yeoman that he had been eligible to receive...
In addition, he alleged that, if he had reenlisted for 6 years on his 6th anniversary, he would not have been required to sign a 9-month extension contract on March 7, 2001. 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 timely counseled. The Board finds that he was not timely counseled and that, if he had been, he would have reenlisted for 6 years to receive the SRB.
Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Coast Guard Personnel Manual Article 3.C.3 (Written Agreements) states that "all personnel with 10 years or less active service who reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall be counseled on the SRB program." However, when he reenlisted, he was incorrectly advised by Coast Guard personnel that he was...