Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2008-006
Original file (2008-006.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 

FINAL DECISION 
BCMR Docket No. 2008-006 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

The applicant asked that his 17-month extension contract dated March 3, 2006, be corrected to 
show that it was executed by reason of “school/ training requirement.” rather than by reason of “request 
of individual.”  He alleged that because the Coast Guard marked the incorrect reason for the extension, 
the  17  months  were  deducted  as  previously  obligated  service  from  the  selective  reenlistment  bonus 
(SRB) he received for reenlisting on October 22, 2007.  The requested correction would increase his SRB 
from his October 22, 2007, reenlistment, because under the SRB regulation, an extension executed to 
attend school or training can be canceled without penalty if it is 2 years or less in length.     
 

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the 
applicant’s request because his record supports his claim that the extension was not at his request but was 
required to obligate service to attend food specialist “A” school.  Moreover, the JAG noted that the Coast 
Guard failed to provide the applicant for any SRB counseling when he extended his enlistment on March 
3, 2006, in violation of the Personnel Manual.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

The JAG admitted, and the Board finds, that the Coast Guard committed errors by not counseling 
the applicant about his SRB opportunities when he extended his enlistment on March 3, 2006, and by 
improperly completing the enlistment contract to show that it was at the request of the applicant rather 
than for “school/training requirement.”  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to relief. 
 

ORDER 

The application of XXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is granted.  His 
March  3,  2006,  extension  contract  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  that  he  extended  by  reason  of 
“school/training requirement,” instead of "request of individual," so that the term of the extension shall 
not count as previously obligated service or reduce his SRB for reenlisting on October 22, 2007.  The 
Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of this correction. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Eric J. Young 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
June 24, 2008 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2008-004

    Original file (2008-004.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2008-004 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked that his record be corrected so that he is entitled to the 42 months of a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) payment that was deducted as previously obligated service from the Zone B SRB that he received as a result of his May 15, 2007 reenlistment. The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the Coast Guard failed to counsel the applicant correctly about the amount of...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2008-036

    Original file (2008-036.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the Coast Guard recommended that the extension contract be corrected to show that the applicant agreed to extend his enlistment for a period of 4 years and 6 months (54 months); that the extension was for the purpose of a PCS transfer; and that the applicant was entitled to receive a SRB with a multiple of 0.5. On its face, the extension agreement shows that on April 9, 2007, the applicant and the Coast Guard executed an agreement that required the applicant to extend his...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2008-040

    Original file (2008-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 he received for extending his enlistment in order to transfer from the CGC ADAK, which was stationed in Bahrain, to the CGC RUSH is tax exempt. Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 3.C. of the Personnel Manual, members may not sign a reenlistment or extension...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-194

    Original file (2009-194.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The JAG recommended that the Board authorize payment of the SRB for the extension contract. of the Personnel Manual states that to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, the member must “[h]ave completed at least 6 but not more than 10 years active service on the date of reenlistment or the operative date of the extension.” Article 3.C.2.6. states that the operative date is “[t]he date the extension begins to run.” In addition, Article 1.G.19.

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2005-165

    Original file (2005-165.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Coast Guard Training and Education Manual, before reporting to “A” school on January 22, 2000, she needed to obligate sufficient service — 19 more months — to complete the 14 weeks of school and have 26 months remaining on her enlistment upon completion of the school.3 Therefore, the applicant is entitled to have the term of her January 20, 2000, extension contract corrected to 19 months. The Board finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled regarding her SRB eligibility,...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-203

    Original file (2009-203.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, he stated, “Knowing that the SRB message [a new ALCOAST] was set to come out a month from that time, I opted to just extend for three months to wait and see if the SRB multiple might increase.” The applicant alleged that the YN3 told him that if he extended his enlistment for just 3 months and the SRB multiple changed under the new ALCOAST, he could cancel the extension by reenlisting to get an SRB after he arrived at his new unit. However, there is no Page 7 dated May 1, 2009,...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2007-108

    Original file (2007-108.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The JAG stated that after a thorough review of the applicant’s record, he had determined that the most advanta- geous correction the Board could make would be to rescind its Order in the applicant’s prior case and leave in place his six-year extension dated April 13, 2006. The JAG stated that, contrary to the applicant’s belief, the SRB he would receive for the April 13, 2006, extension contract would be based on all 72 months of newly obligated service. Because an extension contract does...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2006-038

    Original file (2006-038.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On March 17, 2005, the applicant executed a six-year extension contract to obligate service for a one-year tour aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Baranof. Moreover, he should have been advised that under Article 3.C.5.6 of Personnel Manual, he could cancel the extension before it became operative and reenlist for an SRB while he was in the combat zone. These corrections will allow him to receive an SRB under ALCOAST 332/05 calculated with a multiple of 3 pursuant to a reenlistment contract...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2005-130

    Original file (2005-130.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2 Obligated service refers to all periods of military service covered by signed agreements in the form of enlistment contracts, reenlistment contracts and/or agreements to extend enlistment between Coast Guard members and the U.S. Coast Guard where members agree to serve for designated periods of time. When he received transfer orders in June 2003, the applicant should have been required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty (four years) before accepting the...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-016

    Original file (2009-016.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, the JAG recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record by voiding his June 23, 2007, extension contract and his March 9, 2009, reenlistment contract, and entering a six-year extension contract dated July 17, 2007, for a Zone A SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 304/07. The Board finds that when the applicant signed the 30-month extension contract on June 23, 2007, to obligate service for the transfer to Petaluma, he should have received SRB counseling pursuant to Article 3.C.3....