Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-237
Original file (2009-237.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

FINAL DECISION 
BCMR Docket No. 2009-237 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct the date of his June 19, 2009, reenlistment contract to 
June  23,  2009.    He  believes  that  this  correction  would  make  him  eligible  for  a  selective  reenlistment 
bonus  (SRB)  under  ALCOAST  286/08.    The  contract  and  a  Page  7  in  his  record  show  that  he  was 
advised he was eligible for an SRB for reenlisting on June 19, 2009.  However, the bonus was not paid.  
The applicant’s 6th anniversary on active duty was September 22, 2009, and he was told that to receive 
the bonus, he should have reenlisted within 3 months of the anniversary.  His then-current enlistment, 
dated September 20, 2007, was not due to end until September 19, 2011, and he received his Zone A 
SRB for that contract.  His record also contains a 1-year extension contract, which he signed on July 11, 
2008,  to  obligate  service  to  accept  transfer  orders,  but  which  was  canceled  by  his  June  19,  2009, 
reenlistment.  There is no Page 7 in his record documenting SRB counseling for the extension contract 
although a Zone B SRB multiple was in effect for the ET rating on that date under ALCOAST 304/07. 
 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by cor-
recting  the  June  19,  2009,  contract  date  to  September  22,  2009—the  applicant’s  6th  anniversary.  
However, under ALCOAST 353/09, there was no Zone B SRB multiple authorized for the ET rating after 
July  15,  2009.    The  applicant  replied  to this recommendation by stating that if it  was in his favor he 
would accept it, but if not, he wants the Board to correct his record as he originally requested. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

Article 3.C.4.b.3. of the Personnel Manual states that to be entitled to 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.”  Therefore, no reenlistment contract that the applicant signed prior 
to his 6th anniversary would entitle him to a Zone B SRB, and the promises of the SRB on the contract 
and Page 7 dated June 19, 2009, are clearly erroneous.  Nor was the applicant eligible for a Zone B SRB 
on his 6th anniversary, September 22, 2009, because ALCOAST 353/09, which went into effect on July 
16, 2009, eliminated the Zone B SRB multiple for members in the ET rating. 

 
The Board also notes that the applicant could not have signed an extension contract for a Zone B 
SRB in the summer of 2009.  Article 3.C.5.9. of the Personnel Manual authorizes commanding officers 
only  to  reenlist  members—i.e.,  not  to  extend  their  enlistments—within  the 3 months prior to their 6th 
anniversaries for SRB purposes, and Article 3.C.5.5. states that “[u]nder no circumstances will an indi-
vidual be permitted to extend their enlistment more than 3 months early for SRB purposes alone.  How-
ever,  a  member  who  must  extend  for  some  other  reason  (i.e.,  transfer,  training,  …) may extend for a 
period greater than the minimum required for the purpose of gaining entitlement to an SRB.”  Since the 
applicant’s enlistment was not ending until September 19, 2011, and he was not in receipt of transfer or 
training orders in 2009, there was no authorization for him to sign an extension contract. 

 
On July 11, 2008, however, the applicant was in receipt of transfer orders and needed to extend 
his enlistment to accept the orders.  Because his then-current enlistment ran through September 19, 2011, 
his extension contract would become operative in Zone B and so any SRB he received for extending his 
enlistment on July 11, 2008, would be a Zone B SRB.  Under ALCOAST 304/07, members in the ET 
rating were eligible for a Zone B SRB on July 11, 2008.  However, the applicant extended his enlistment 

for just 1 year even though under Article 3.C.5.5. of the Personnel Manual, he could have extended his 
enlistment for a longer period to receive an SRB and, under Article 3.C.4.b.5., an extension or reenlist-
ment contract must be at least 3 years long to make a member eligible for an SRB. 

 
Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant should have been counseled about 
his SRB eligibility when he signed the extension contract on July 11, 2008, and that counseling should 
have been documented on a Page 7.  There is no Page 7 in his record documenting SRB counseling on 
that date.  Therefore, although the applicant did not complain about the lack of SRB counseling in July 
2008,  in  light  of  the  erroneous  SRB  counseling  he  received  in  June  2009,  the  Board  believes  that  he 
should have the opportunity to increase the term of his July 11, 2008, extension contract to receive a 
Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 307/04 if he so desires.  Moreover, even if he does not opt to receive that 
SRB, his June 19, 2009, reenlistment contract with the erroneous promise of the SRB should be removed 
from his record as null and void and his prior enlistment and extension contracts should be reinstated. 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 

granted in part as follows:   

ORDER 

 

 

 

•  The June 19, 2009, reenlistment contract shall be removed from his record as null and void. 

•  His September 20, 2007, reenlistment contract and 1-year extension contract dated July 11, 2008, 

shall be reinstated.   
 

•  Within 60 days of the date of this decision, the Coast Guard shall counsel him about SRBs and 
about his options under this order.  After this counseling, if the applicant so elects, the Coast 
Guard shall correct the term of his July 11, 2008, extension contract to 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, at his 
discretion, to entitle him to a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 304/07.  
 

•  The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount he may be due under ALCOAST 304/07 as a result 

of any correction made to his record pursuant to this order. 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

                     

 
 Julia Andrews 

 
 
 
 
 
June 8, 2010 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*The  third  member  of  the  Board  was  unavailable.    However,  pursuant  to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.11(b),  two 
designated members constitute a quorum of the Board.  

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 *  

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

  



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 2009-125

    Original file (2009-125.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment contract, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB authorized for the member’s skill/rating, which is published in an ALCOAST. His record does not On July 1, 2007, the applicant reported for duty to Station Miami Beach, and on July 7th...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-084

    Original file (2010-084.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board notes that the JAG alleged that the applicant should also have been advised of his Zone A SRB eligibility on his 6th anniversary, April 28, 2009, pursuant to Article 3.C.9. There is no Page 7 in the applicant’s record documenting SRB counseling on his 6th anniversary, but since he had already extended his enlistment through February 26, 2016, to receive a Zone B SRB and so could not reenlist for just 6 years, through April 27, 2015, to receive a Zone A SRB, he was not actually...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2009-258

    Original file (2009-258.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2009-258 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that is cited on his June 29, 2009, six-year reenlistment contract. of the Personnel Manual, was authorized to reenlist for a longer period to receive an SRB. (2) states that enlisted members receiving tuition assistance “do not incur a service obligation but must complete the course of instruction prior to RELAD, separation or retirement.” Therefore,...

  • 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 | 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....

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2012-038

    Original file (2012-038.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 2, 2012, is signed by the three duly appointed members APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a chief operations specialist (OSC) asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is eligible to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 on his sixth active duty anniversary. SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-055

    Original file (2010-055.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence of the July 28, 2009, extension contract in the record submitted to the Board by the Coast Guard, which contains only his original 6-year enlistment dated October 29, 2003, and the 4- year reenlistment dated October 14, 2009, and contains no Page 7s documenting SRB counseling. The JAG alleged that the applicant could have reenlisted for an SRB on July 28, 2009, and recommended that the Board reenlist the applicant for 4 years on that date for an SRB calculated with...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2007-054

    Original file (2007-054.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    3 To be eligible for a Zone B SRB, a member must have completed “at least 6 years but not more than 10 years of active service on the date of reenlistment or operative date of the extension.” Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.4.b.3. He stated that upon receiving transfer orders to the Coast Guard Integrated Support Command (ISC) and the Coast Guard Cutter Healy in Seattle, he was counseled by a Coast Guard yeoman1 that he was eligible to reenlist or extend for up to six years for a...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2004-172

    Original file (2004-172.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment contract, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB authorized for the member’s skill/rating, which is published in an ALCOAST. On April 5, 2005, the JAG issued a supplemental advisory opinion in this case, in which he withdrew...