DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-064 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on April 7, 2003, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 5, 2003, 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 an enlistment bonus upon completing “A” School to become a quartermaster (QM).  
He alleged that in October 2000, he was in the Army National Guard but wanted to join 
the regular Coast Guard, so he contacted a recruiter.  He told the recruiter that he had 
prior active service in the Army, was in the Guard, and wanted to join the Coast Guard 
but did not know what rating he wanted to enter.  He told the recruiter that he would 
pick a rating after completing Basic Training.  He alleged that he asked if there was a 
bonus  available  and  was  told  by  the  recruiter  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  offer 
bonuses  to  prior  service  personnel,  but  that  he  would  be  advanced  to  pay  grade  E-3 
immediately upon completing Basic Training.  The applicant stated, “I took that as fine 
and enlisted for 4 years.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that upon arriving at the training center in January 2001, 
he learned that some prior service recruits had received a bonus for enlisting.  In addi-
tion, “the Command Master Chiefs from critical ratings came to [the training center] to 
talk to the trainees about each critical rating and offered us the opportunity to sign up 
for those ‘A’ Schools while we were in Basic Training and that we could receive a bonus 
for those ratings.”  Therefore, he stated, he signed up for QM “A” School and was told 

that the bonus was $8,000 upon successful completion of the training.  However, when 
he was completing the paperwork to attend QM “A” School, he was told that he was 
not  eligible  for  the  bonus  because  his  recruiter  did  not  fill  out  the  right  paperwork.  
However, he stated, he decided to attend the school and become a QM anyway. 
 
 
At QM “A” School, the applicant alleged, he learned that he was the only one, 
out  of  21  students,  who  would  not  receive  a  bonus.    He  stated  that  he  feels  that  his 
recruiter lied to him.  In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a letter from 
his  current  commanding  officer  (CO).    The  CO  asked  the  Board  to  correct  the  appli-
cant’s record for the following reasons: 
 

Due to an apparent oversight by his recruiter and through no direct fault of the member, 
[the applicant] did not receive the initial enlistment bonus eligible at the time that other 
prior service military members in his Basic Training class had received.  He later signed 
up for and completed Quartermaster “A” School after being advised during Basic Train-
ing that members who successfully completed that school would receive an $8000 bonus.  
Despite  completing  that  course  of  instruction,  he  was  told  that  he  was  not  eligible 
because his recruiter had not completed the proper paperwork at the time of his enlist-
ment.  However, other members from his same class did receive the critical rating bonus. 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  good  faith  under  the  instructions  that  he  received  from  his 
recruiter at that time.  However, he has confirmed that those instructions were not accu-
rate and that they adversely impacted the bonus he should have received upon enlisting 
or the later bonus he could have received for successfully completing a critical rating “A” 
school.  The member attempted to correct this mistake during Basic Training and while at 
“A” school without success. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On January 9, 2001, the applicant enlisted as an E-3 in the Coast Guard for a term 
of  four  years.    On  the  contract,  he  initialed  an  acknowledgment  that  no  promises  or 
guarantees other than those shown on the contract had been made to him.  The contract 
does not mention an enlistment bonus.  A “Statement of Understanding” that he and his 
recruiter signed that day indicates that he was enlisting as an E-3 because of his prior 
military  service.    A  “Statement  of  Creditable  Service”  shows  that  he  had  previously 
served in the Army for two years, three months, and 22 days, and that he had recently 
been in the Army National Guard. 
 

Upon completing basic training, the applicant attended QM “A” School.  On June 
15, 2001, he successfully completed the training.  On July 9, 2001, he was advanced to 
QM3, pay grade E-4.  He is currently assigned to a cutter. 

INITIAL VIEW OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 22, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 

 
 
opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  applicant  was  not  entitled  to  an  enlistment 
bonus merely because other recruits were offered the bonus as an inducement to enlist.  
He alleged that no recruit is entitled to an enlistment bonus unless he is eligible and his 
recruiter offers him the bonus as an inducement to reenlist.  The Chief Counsel attached 
to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated the following: 
 

[A]n  enlistment  incentive  bonus  to  attend  QM  “A”  School  was  offered  to  prospective 
enlistees on a case by case basis during the time the Applicant enlisted.  Recruiters were 
authorized  to  offer  this  incentive  at  their  discretion,  depending  on  their  determination 
that an incentive was necessary to successfully recruit an individual. …  If the recruiter 
feels that a bonus is not needed to enlist an applicant, the bonus will not be offered. …  
[I]t is clear that the Applicant was neither promised nor expected any kind of enlistment 
bonus. …  The recruiter had no obligation to offer a bonus to the Applicant and no blan-
ket entitlement existed for students attending QM “A” School.  Even with the knowledge 
that he would not receive a bonus, the Applicant volunteered to attend QM “A” School.   

 
 
CGPC stated that since October 2002, recruiters have been required to complete a 
form  with  new  recruits  in  which  they  acknowledge  that  they  have  “not  been  offered 
any bonus incentive, either to enlist or attend a specific “A” school, but that a member 
may be eligible for a bonus if they agree to attend an “A” school while in basic training 
for a rating that offers an enlistment bonus.”  CGPC stated that prior to October 2002, 
Annex  H  was  to  be  used  only  selectively  by  recruiters  to  document  the  offer  of  the 
incentive.  However, CGPC was unable to provide a copy of the instructions provided 
to recruiters prior to October 2002 regarding the use of Annex H. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On August 25, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant copies of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and CGPC’s memorandum and invited him to respond.  On Septem-
ber 26, 2003, the applicant submitted his response. 
 
The applicant stated that “the fact that an individual Coast Guard recruiter can 
 
selectively offer recruiting bonuses is astonishing.  This practice is at the very least ineq-
uitable, and quite frankly could easily be interpreted as an instrument of prejudice, par-
tiality or graft.”  He stated that “[a]s a prior military member, I was aware of recruit-
ment  incentives,  and  therefore  my  expectation  was  that  my  recruiter  would  be  forth-
right  in  his  depiction  of  my  available  options,  based  on  my  particular  skill  sets  and 
experience  which  included  prior  military  service  and  three  years  of  college  course-
work.”  The applicant alleged that he specifically asked his recruiter if he was eligible 
for  any  recruiting  bonuses  and  “was  told  no  bonuses  were  available  for prior service 
personnel.” 
 
 
The applicant argued that the new requirement that recruiters complete “Annex 
H” with new recruits proves the unfairness of the prior policy of allowing recruiters to 

offer bonuses selectively.  Therefore, he asked the Board to correct his record by includ-
ing an “Annex H” so that he would be eligible for the bonus. 
 

 SUPPLEMENTAL ADVISORY OPINION 

 
On December 30, 2003, following further inquiry by the Board, the Chief Counsel 
of the Coast Guard submitted a supplemental advisory opinion on the case in which he 
recommended that the Board grant relief.  The Chief Counsel stated that during discus-
sions of the case with personnel at the training center and recruiting command, “it was 
discovered that at the relevant time, [the training center] had the authority to authorize 
an  enlistment  bonus  when  trainees  elected  class ‘A’ school for a critical rating.  [That 
authority]  existed  independently  of  the  recruiters’  authority  to  offer  an  enlistment 
bonus at the time of the enlistee’s recruitment. …  Unfortunately, at the time Applicant 
was  involved  in  the  process  it  was  both  confused  and  confusing  and  record  keeping 
was  apparently  inconsistent.”    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  this  new  information 
indicates that the applicant received erroneous advice when he was told at the training 
center that he could not receive the bonus because his recruiter had not completed an 
Annex H.  Therefore, he recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request in 
the interest of justice. 

 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the  
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  and  the  Coast  Guard  admitted  that  upon  success-
fully completing QM “A” School, the applicant would have been entitled to an $8,000 
enlistment bonus if his recruiter had completed an Annex H form for the applicant at 
the time of his enlistment and incorporated it into his enlistment contract.  The record 
further  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  QM  classmates  received  the  enlistment  bonus 
upon  successfully  completing  QM  “A”  School  because  their  recruiters  had completed 
Annex  H.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  had  asked  his  recruiter  about  an  enlistment 
bonus  for  enlistees  with  prior  military  service  and  was  erroneously  told  he  was  not 
eligible for one. 

 
3. 

The record indicates that while still in boot camp the applicant signed up 
for  QM  “A”  school  based  on  the  belief  that  he  would  receive  the  enlistment  bonus, 
which he learned about at a presentation by the Command Master Chiefs.  However, 
while  completing  the  paperwork  for  his  enrollment  in  QM  “A”  School,  the  applicant 
was  advised  that  he  was  ineligible  for  the  bonus  because  his  recruiter  had  failed  to 

complete Annex H.  The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard has admitted that this advice 
was erroneous because the training center had independent authority to make trainees 
who enrolled in an “A” School for a critical rating eligible for the bonus.  The applicant 
relied on the erroneous advice to his detriment. 

 
4. 

To his credit, the applicant agreed to attend QM “A” School and enter a 
rigorous  seagoing  career  despite  being  told  (erroneously)  that  he  could  not  become 
eligible  for  the  bonus.    He  successfully  completed  the  school  but  did  not  receive  the 
bonus.  In light of the above findings and the particular circumstances of this case, the 
Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  failure  to  receive  the  $8,000  enlistment  bonus  con-
stitutes a significant error and injustice in his record. 
 

5. 

 Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  granted  by  adding  an 

Annex H into his enlistment contract to make him eligible for the bonus. 
 
 

 

ORDER 

 

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

The Coast Guard shall pay him any sum he may be due as a result of this cor-

record is granted. 
 
 
His enlistment contract shall be corrected to include an Annex H, completed so 
as  to  make  him  eligible  for  the  enlistment  bonus  authorized  for  members  who 
successfully completed QM “A” School. 
 
 
rection. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 
 George J. Jordan