DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2010-055
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked to be paid a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) for reenlisting on October
14, 2009. He alleged that on July 28, 2009, after he received orders to transfer from ESD Miami to ESU
Miami on August 1, 2009, he told a yeoman that he wanted to extend his enlistment for a year and then
later cancel the extension before its operative date, October 20, 2009, to reenlist for an SRB. However,
the orders required 4 years of obligated service, and his enlistment was ending on October 19, 2009.
Therefore, his prior enlistment was extended for 4 years instead of 1 year to obligate service for the trans-
fer. When he tried to reenlist for 4 years for an SRB on October 14, 2009, he was allowed to sign an
enlistment contract stating that he was eligible for an SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.8 under
ALCOAST 286/08. However, he was later told that he could not get the SRB because of the 4-year
extension in his record. The applicant alleged that his Servicing Personnel Office (SPO) deleted the
extension from his record to help him get the SRB, but the Personnel Service Center informed the SPO
that the extension was still present in the database and that his new reenlistment was void. In support of
his allegations, the applicant submitted a Career Intentions Worksheet dated July 27, 2009, on which he
noted that he wanted to extend his enlistment for only 1 year, and an unsigned 4-year extension contract
dated July 28, 2009. He also submitted emails between administrative personnel stating that the applicant
could not get the promised SRB with the 4-year extension in his record and that he should have submitted
a request for a short-term extension.
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
second contract states that he was authorized an SRB multiple of 1.8 under ALCOAST 286/08, which
was canceled as of July 15, 2009, and only authorized an SRB multiple of 1.5 for IT2s. On July 16, 2009,
ALCOAST 353/09 went into effect and did authorize an SRB multiple of 1.8 for IT2s. However, under
ALCOAST 393/09, the SRB program was temporarily suspended from July 16 to September 30, 2009.
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief
because on July 28, 2009, the applicant was within 3 months of his 6th active duty anniversary (October
20, 2009). 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 a
multiple of 1.8 under ALCOAST 353/09. The applicant agreed with this recommendation.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to accurate SRB coun-
seling when he extended his enlistment on July 28, 2009, and when he reenlisted on October 14, 2009,
and those counseling sessions should have been documented on Page 7s. The lack of a Page 7 in the
record before the Board supports his allegation that he was not properly counseled. Under Article
4.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual, members with less than 6 years of service must obligate sufficient ser-
vice to complete a full tour of duty before executing transfer orders. Therefore, the applicant should have
been required to obligate 4 years of new service prior to his transfer date, August 1, 2009, in which case
he could not receive an SRB for reenlisting for 4 years on October 14, 2009, because under Article 3.C.7.
of the manual, SRBs are paid only for months of newly obligated service. The applicant’s record appar-
ently showed at one point that he had obligated 4 years of new service on July 28, 2009, but whether he
ever agreed to this obligation by signing a 4-year extension contract is unclear since there is no signed
contract in the record before the Board. The applicant was not eligible for an SRB on July 28, 2009,
because under ALCOAST 393/09, the SRB program was temporarily suspended at the time.
The JAG argued that because the applicant was within 3 months of his 6th active duty anniversary
on July 28, 2009, he could have reenlisted for the SRB on that date. However, under ALCOAST 393/09,
the SRB program was suspended. Paragraph 1.D. of the ALCOAST provided an exception to the suspen-
sion for members whose 6th or 10th anniversary fell between July 16 and September 30, 2009, but the
applicant’s 6th anniversary was October 20, 2009. Therefore, the exception under ALCOAST 393/09 did
not apply to the applicant and he could not have reenlisted for an SRB on July 28, 2009.
The Coast Guard has greatly confused matters in this case by (1) entering a 4-year extension
dated July 28, 2009, in the database without entering a corresponding signed extension contract in his
record to prove his agreement; (2) removing the extension from the database; (3) erroneously promising
him an SRB for a 4-year reenlistment on October 14, 2009; (4) enforcing the reenlistment but refusing to
pay him the SRB based on the removed extension; and (5) alleging in the advisory opinion that he was
eligible to reenlist for an SRB on July 28, 2009, even though he was not. Under the circumstances of this
case, the Board finds that the applicant has suffered an injustice. Accordingly, relief should be granted by
voiding the 4-year extension contract that the applicant allegedly signed on July 28, 2009, and paying him
the SRB he was promised on October 14, 2009.
ORDER
The military record of IT2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, shall be corrected by removing the
July 28, 2009, 4-year extension contract from his record as null and void. The Coast Guard shall pay him
the SRB he is due as a result of this correction and his October 14, 2009, 4-year reenlistment contract.
Lillian Cheng
Francis H. Esposito
Randall J. Kaplan
September 23, 2010
Date
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard stated that typically when the proper personnel office receives a message about a member’s eligibility for advancement on a supplemental advancement list one month, the member’s name is added to the list the following month, and “the member is advanced the third month.” Therefore, when the applicant’s com- mand sent a message about his eligibility for advancement to an electronic address that had recently become...
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...
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...
The Coast Guard erred when it counseled the applicant that he was eligible to receive a Zone B SRB for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on January 31, 2002. of the Personnel Manual, which show that a member’s SRB equals his monthly basic pay, multiplied by the SRB multiple authorized under the ALCOAST in effect, multiplied the number of months of service newly obligated under the contract, and divided by 12, if the appli- cant had reenlisted for four years on this 6th anniversary...
He stated, however, that the SRB he received for signing the July 7, 2005, reenlistment contract was calculated with a multiple of 1.0. The applicant alleged that prior to signing the reenlistment contract, he contacted his servicing personnel office (SPO) regarding his bonus, and was told that he was eligible to reenlist for six years to receive a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.5. The applicant’s record contains a Page 7 and a reenlistment contract, both dated July 7, 2005,...
CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2009-195
of the Personnel Manual, SRBs are calculated on the member’s basic pay as of the day before the date of reenlistment. Therefore, the maximum Zone A SRB the applicant could have received on his 6th anniversary was $16,803.00 ((SRB multiple 2) x ($1,680.30 monthly basic pay) x (60 months of newly obligated service) ÷ 12). Under ALCOAST 283/06, which was in effect on the applicant’s 10th anniversary, he was eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 0.5 and the monthly basic pay...
of the Personnel Manual, SRBs are calculated on the member’s basic pay as of the day before the date of reenlistment. Therefore, the maximum Zone A SRB the applicant could have received on his 6th anniversary was $16,803.00 ((SRB multiple 2) x ($1,680.30 monthly basic pay) x (60 months of newly obligated service) ÷ 12). Under ALCOAST 283/06, which was in effect on the applicant’s 10th anniversary, he was eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 0.5 and the monthly basic pay...
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...
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...
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...