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. 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. The
applicant alleged that he was authorized to reenlist because of the obligated service requirements
for tuition assistance he had been granted. However, the Coast Guard, citing ALCOAST 043/03,
told him that he did not need additional obligated service to accept the tuition assistance and so
was not authorized to reenlist. Therefore, the Coast Guard refused to pay him the SRB. The
applicant alleged that under the regulations in COMDTINST 5215.6E, ALCOAST 043/03 was
automatically canceled one year after it was issued, in 2004. Instead, the applicant alleged, the
regulation in COMDTINST 1500.10B, issued in 1992, was valid, and it required one year of
obligated service to receive tuition assistance. Therefore, because his prior enlistment was due to
end on January 5, 2010, he needed to obligate additional service to accept the tuition assistance
in June 2009 and, under Article 3.C.5.5. of the Personnel Manual, was authorized to reenlist for a
longer period to receive an SRB.
The applicant’s military record shows that he enlisted for 4 years on January 9, 2001;
extended that enlistment for 1 year; and on January 6, 2006, reenlisted for 4 years for a Zone A
SRB through January 5, 2010. In addition, the Coast Guard has entered the June 29, 2009, 6-year
reenlistment contract in his record with a promise of a Zone B SRB multiple of 1.2 under
ALCOAST 353/09 (although ALCOAST 286/08 was then in effect) but has not paid him the
Zone B SRB.
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board
deny the applicant’s request. The JAG noted the regulations cited by the applicant in ALCOAST
043/03 and COMDTINST 1500.10B but offered no explanation as to why the ALCOAST rules
apply rather than those in the instruction. The JAG further stated that the class for which the
applicant received tuition assistance ended on December 19, 2009, and so under ALCOAST
043/03, he already had sufficient obligated service to accept the tuition assistance and was
therefore not authorized to reenlist.
In response to the JAG’s recommendation, the applicant stated that his command relied
on COMDTINST 1500.10B in advising him of the one-year obligated service requirement and
the opportunity under Article 3.C.5.5. to reenlist for an even longer period for an SRB. He noted
that this instruction was accessible to his command through the Coast Guard Directives System,
whereas ALCOAST 043/03 was not and that the accessible rule should apply. He argued that he
“should not be penalized for the lack of ability of the CG to properly update the manuals
available through CG Central.” The applicant noted that after he reenlisted to receive an SRB,
the Coast Guard updated the Directives System to include the new manual, COMDTINST
1500.10C, which reflects the rule under ALCOAST 043/03.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
COMDTINST M1500.10C was issued on May 18, 2009, and section 11.H.2.d.(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, the
applicant did not need additional obligated service to accept the tuition assistance, and since he
was not within 3 months of his end of enlistment or his 6th or 10th active duty anniversary, his
commanding officer had no authority under the Personnel Manual to discharge and reenlist him.
See Personnel Manual, Arts. 12.B.7. and 3.C.5.5. Therefore, he has proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that in June 2009 his command erroneously counseled him about his eligibility to
reenlist for an SRB.
The question is what remedy is appropriate. With an erroneous promise of an SRB that
the Coast Guard has refused to honor, the reenlistment contract is clearly voidable. However, the
applicant asks to be paid the SRB instead. He had already obligated service through January 5,
2010, so he has now served about 6 months of active duty that he might not have served had he
not been erroneously promised the SRB. On the other hand, with more than 8 years of service,
the applicant was already in “career status” in June 2009, and he has not requested discharge or
claimed that he would have left active duty but for the promise of the bonus. Because the
promise of the SRB is written on the reenlistment contract, because the Coast Guard has enforced
the contract, and because the applicant has already served 6 months that he might not have served
had he not been promised the SRB, the Board finds that in the interest of justice, the SRB should
be paid.
ORDER
The military record of BM1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected to show
that he is eligible for and entitled to a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 286/08 for his June 29,
2009, 6-year reenlistment contract. The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of
this correction.
Julia Andrews
Lillian Cheng
Paul B. Oman
July 8, 2010
Date
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...
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,...
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDT- INST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. Therefore, the preponderance of the 5 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. The Coast Guard shall correct her record to show that she canceled her four-month extension contract dated November 21, 2006, by reenlisting for a Zone A SRB on July 15, 2009, for a term of 4, 5, or 6 years, at her discretion.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDT- INST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. of the Personnel Manual, he would have reenlisted on October 2, 2009, so that he would be entitled to the SRB and not have any previously obligated service remaining to run on his prior enlistment, which would reduce his SRB.10 The Board notes that the applicant asked to be reen- 8 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6A, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. However, the Coast Guard transferred the applicant with only one year...
Coast Guard members who have at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A,” while those who have more than 6 but less than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.” Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone. The JAG argued that the applicant was eligible only for a Zone B SRB because he had completed more than seven years of active duty when he reenlisted, and pursuant to Article 3.C.4.b.3. The Board will exercise its authority and grant...
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...
The JAG recommended that the Board deny relief, arguing that the applicant was not eligible for an SRB because he did not complete 17 months of continuous active duty prior to signing the contract, and because his June 28, 2009, contract was an enlistment, rather than a reenlistment since he had not served more than 12 months on extended active duty. However, the applicant was not eligible for an SRB for integrating into the regular Coast Guard on June 28, 2009, for two reasons: First, he...
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 | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-007
This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an intelligence specialist, third class (IS3), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he signed a four-year reenlistment contract on July 16, 2008, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1 He alleged that when he received his transfer orders to Portsmouth, VA, he was erroneously counseled about his SRB eligibility and...
This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an intelligence specialist, third class (IS3), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he signed a four-year reenlistment contract on July 16, 2008, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1 He alleged that when he received his transfer orders to Portsmouth, VA, he was erroneously counseled about his SRB eligibility and...