DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2004-048
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 6 years
on July 1, 2003, instead of June 13, 2003, to enable him to receive a selective reenlistment bonus
(SRB) with a multiple of 2.5. He alleged that in June 2003, he needed to extend his enlistment,
which was due to end on June 7, 2004, for at least one month in order to accept transfer orders
and report to his new unit on June 23, 2003. Article 4.B.6.a.2. of the Personnel Manual provides
that members with more than six years of active duty “are required to have one year of OBLI-
SERV remaining upon reporting to the new unit.” His yeoman advised him that he could
receive an SRB with a multiple 2.5 if he reenlisted instead of extending for just one month.
However, he received an SRB with a multiple of only 2.0 because the extra 0.5 multiple for cox-
swains provided in ALCOAST 182/03 did not go into effect until July 1, 2003. The applicant’s
contract and a page 7 in his record both show that he was erroneously counseled that he would
receive an SRB with a multiple of 2.5 based on 60 months of newly obligated service in
exchange for his June 2003 reenlistment even though under ALCOAST 329/02, which was still
in effect at the time, the multiple for his rating was just 2.0.
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. TJAG alleged that it is reasonable to assume that if the applicant had been
properly counseled, he would have extended his enlistment for just one month and then
reenlisted in July 2003.
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 ALCOASTs 329/02 and 182/03. He has
proved that he was not properly counseled. Although TJAG alleged that the applicant could
have reenlisted in July 2003, there was no legal authority to reenlist him in July 2003. The
applicant had to obligate service prior to his reporting date, June 23, 2003. After reporting to
his new unit, he was not authorized to sign another contract in July 2003 because his enlistment
was not due to end until June 7, 2004. 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. Moreover, waiting to reenlist until the end of his enlistment, as
required by the Personnel Manual, would have benefited the applicant by entitling him to an
SRB undiminished by previously obligated service. Under Article 3.C.7., SRB payments are
made only for months of newly obligated service. If the Board corrected his record to show
that he reenlisted in July 2003, as TJAG recommended, his SRB would be reduced by the 11
months of service remaining to run on his prior enlistment. The Board’s policy is to correct an
applicant’s record to appear as it would have if he had received proper counseling. The Board
finds that, if the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have extended his enlistment
for one month on June 13, 2003, instead of reenlisting, and that on June 8, 2004, he would have
canceled that extension and reenlisted for 6 years. Accordingly, this relief should be granted.
ORDER
The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show that on
June 13, 2003, he extended his enlistment for one month, from June 8, 2004, through July 7,
2004, for the purpose of OBLISERV. The reenlistment contract that he signed on June 13, 2003,
shall be null and void. His record shall be further corrected to show that on June 8, 2004, he
canceled the one-month extension contract and reenlisted for 6 years. The Coast Guard shall
pay him the amount due under ALCOAST 182/03 as a result of this correction.
August 19, 2004
Date
Molly McConville Weber
Dorothy J. Ulmer
Terry E. Bathen
Coast Guard members who have at least 6 but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. If the applicant had been properly counseled, it would be reasonable to assume that he would have extended for one (01) year to meet the obligated service requirement to accept his orders and prior to the effective date of the extension [July 11, 2003] he would have reenlisted for the Zone B SRB multiple of [2.5] that he was promised. The...
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...
This final decision, dated November 12, 2004, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 3.5, instead of the multiple of 2.5 that he received for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on March 21, 2004. When he executed the extension contract, the applicant was counseled that he was eligible to receive a Zone B SRB with...
Coast Guard members who have less than 6 of active duty service are in “Zone A.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. TJAG stated that in an effort to afford the applicant a result that most closely represents the bargain she claimed, the Coast Guard recommended that the Board offer her two options: First, Applicant could have her record corrected by voiding her reenlistment contract dated 3 June 2003 and subsequently extending her period of service until the BCMR final decision. ...
This final decision, dated April 15, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 with a multiple of 2.5 instead of the 2.0 multiple he actually received. Coast Guard members who have at least 6 but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. This provision...
of the Personnel Manual provides that extension contracts for terms of two years or less may be canceled prior to their operative dates to allow the member to sign a new, longer extension or reenlistment contract to receive an SRB. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant could have canceled his May 6, 2003, three-year extension contract by signing a six-year reenlistment contract on July 18, 2004, to obtain a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 182/03. Canceling the extension contract will reduce the...
This final decision, dated June 30, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 with a multiple of 2.5 instead of the 2.0 multiple he actually received. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD In March 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief, as follows: (1) void the May 22,...
The applicant alleged that when he signed a six-year extension contract on May 1, 2003, he was counseled that he would receive an SRB with a multiple of 2.5. The Board also finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled at the time of his May 1, 2003, reenlistment, he would have had the following options: Reenlist as he did for an SRB with a multiple of 2.0 under ALCOAST 329/02; a. b. c. Be discharged from the Coast Guard. of the Personnel Manual, and at the termination of said...
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...
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...