DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2004-157
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
Author: Hale, D.
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is eligible to receive
a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) with a multiple of 2.5 for his June 30, 2003,
reenlistment. His reenlistment contract and administrative remarks (page 7) indicate that the
applicant was advised that he could reenlist on that date to receive a SRB with the 2.5 multiple.
In fact, the SRB multiple on that date was only 2. Pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02, on June 30,
2003, the applicant was only entitled to a multiple of 2 for reenlisting for 6 years as a machinery
technician, first class (MK1). However, on July 1, 2003, ALCOAST 182/03 became effective,
and although the multiple remained the same for a member with the applicant’s rating and
grade, an additional .5 multiple was added for MKs if that member possessed one of the 7 boat
engineer competency codes. The applicant possessed one of those codes.
On July 8, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended
that the Board deny the applicant’s request but recommended granting alternative relief. He
stated that the applicant was not entitled to a SRB with a multiple of 2.5 on June 30, 2003.
However, the JAG stated that if the applicant had been properly counseled, he likely would
have waited one day and reenlisted on July 1, 2003, to receive a SRB with a multiple of 2.5.
Accordingly, the JAG recommended that the applicant’s record be changed to show that he
reenlisted on July 1, 2003, instead of June 30, 2003.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under Article 3.C. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to proper
counseling concerning his eligibility for a Zone B SRB when he reenlisted on June 30, 2003. He
was given improper counseling and told that he could reenlist on June 30, 2003, to receive a
SRB with a multiple of 2.5 under ALCOAST 182/03. In fact, the applicant should have waited
until July 1, 2003, to reenlist for the SRB because he would have received a larger SRB because
his competency code entitled him to an additional .5 multiple. The Board denies the applicant’s
requested relief, but the Board grants the alternative relief recommended by the JAG.
The military record of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, shall be corrected
to show that he reenlisted for 6 years on July 1, 2003, instead of June 30, 2003. The Coast Guard
shall pay him the amount due under ALCOAST 182/03 as a result of this correction.
ORDER
March 2005
Bruce D. Burkley
Jordan S. Fried
George J. Jordan
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...
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...
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him a 0.5 selective reen- listment bonus (SRB) multiple “kicker” in addition to the 2.0 SRB multiple he received for sign- ing a 5-year reenlistment contract that is dated June 13, 2003, when ALCOAST 329/021 was in effect, but which, he alleged, he actually signed on July 5, 2003, when ALCOAST 182/032 was in effect. In support of his allegations, he submitted a copy of the contract with a...
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 March 31, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an operations specialist second class (OS2), asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled to a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 2.1 He alleged that, prior to being transferred to his current station on July 7, 2003, he was not properly counseled about his eligibility for an SRB when he signed a...
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...
of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual states that to receive a Zone A SRB, the member cannot have previously received a Zone A SRB. The counseling was erroneous because the applicant received a Zone A SRB for his September 22, 2001, reenlistment, and pursuant to Article 3.C.4.a.6. Therefore, the Board finds that if the applicant had received proper SRB counseling in accordance with Article 3.C.3., he would have (a) extended his enlistment for 23 months instead of reenlisting in July 2003 and...
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,...
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...
The Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error by not counseling the applicant on a Page 7 when he reenlisted on September 13, 1997, as required by Article 2 of Enclosure (1) to COMDINST 7220.33. The applicant alleged that he would not have reenlisted on September 13, 1997, if he had known that he was not required to do so until his enlistment expired on July 12, 1999.5 The Board finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled on September 13, 1997, he would have had the...