DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2006-182 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on September 22, 2006, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  31,  2007,  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  he  is  entitled  to  the 
$8000 Selective Reserve  enlistment bonus he was promised when he affiliated with the Coast 
Guard Reserve.  The applicant stated that although he enlisted based on the promise of an $8000 
bonus,  the  Coast  Guard  later  told  him  that  he  was  entitled  to  only  a  $6000  bonus  because 
although he was enlisting in a critical rate, he was not assigned to a critical duty station. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On August 13, 2004, ten days before his enlistment, the applicant and his recruiter signed 
a Page 7 (form CG-3307), which was entered into the applicant’s record and states the following: 
 

08  /  23  /  04   I  have  been  advised  that  I  am  eligible  for  a  $8000   SELRES 
enlistment  or  affiliation  incentive bonus.  Receipt of this bonus commits me to 
SELRES participation through _08 / 22 / 04_[sic].  I hereby acknowledge that I 
have read and fully understand the contents of COMDTINST 7220.1 Series and 
ALCOAST 268/04. 

 
 
On  August  23,  2004,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Selected  Reserve  (SELRES)  for  six 
years.  His enlistment contract does not reference the Page 7 or any annex concerning a bonus.  
Section B of the contract references Annexes A, G, and O.  Annex A is a Statement of Under-

standing concerning the applicant’s military obligations.  Annex G is a form showing that the 
applicant was enlisted in pay grade E-3 because he had completed at least 60 college semester 
hours.  Annex O is a Statement of Understanding in which the applicant agreed to attend OS “A” 
School to become an operations specialist.   
 

On  the  enlistment  contract,  the  applicant  initialed  section  B.8.c.  of  the  contract  which 
states that “[t]he agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to 
me  by  the  Government.    ANYTHING  ELSE  ANYONE  HAS  PROMISED  ME  IS  NOT 
VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED.”  The applicant also signed and initialed section 
D.13.a., which states the following in bold, capitalized letters: 

 
I  certify  that  I  have  carefully  read  this  document.    Any  questions  I  had  were 
explained  to  my  satisfaction.    I  fully  understand  that  only  those  agreements  in 
Section B of this document or recorded on the attached annex(es) will be honored.  
Any other promises or guarantees made to me by anyone are written below: (If 
none, X “NONE” and initial.)                     [ X ] NONE  [initials of applicant]  
 
 
In August 2004, ALCOAST 268/04 was in effect and provided the regulations for enlist-
ment bonuses for Selected Reserve recruits with no prior military service.  ALCOAST 268/04 
authorizes a Level I bonus of $6000 for members who enlist in the SELRES for six years in a 
“critical rating assigned to [a] critical unit.”  It identifies the critical ratings as BM, MK, MST, 
and OS.  It identifies all Port Security Units and Harbor Defense Commands as the critical units. 
 
 
ALCOAST 268/04 also authorizes a Level II bonus of $4000 for members who enlist in 
the SELRES for six years in a “critical rating assigned to any unit, or any rating assigned to [a] 
critical unit.”  No part of ALCOAST 268/04 authorizes an $8000 bonus. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On February 20, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 

an advisory opinion and recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   

 
The  JAG  stated  under  ALCOAST  268/04,  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  only  a  $4000 
Level II bonus because he was assigned to a critical rating but not to a critical unit.  The JAG 
further  stated  that  the  Page  7  that  the  applicant  signed  on  August  13,  2004,  was  not  only 
unauthorized but also invalid because  

 
(a) it was signed 10 days before the actual date of enlistment;  
(b) it commits the applicant to serve in the SELRES for only nine days, through August 

22, 2004, when the applicant had not yet enlisted in the SELRES; and 

(c) it purports to document the reading and understanding of ALCOAST 268/04, which 

was clearly untrue for both the applicant and the recruiter who signed the Page 7. 

 
The JAG argued that the relief requested by the applicant “is an inappropriate remedy.  
Therefore, the applicant should continue to receive the remainder of the $4000 SELRES enlist-
ment incentive bonus he qualified for under the direction of ALCOAST 268/04.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 23, 2007, the Chair sent a copy of the JAG’s advisory opinion to the appli-
cant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant was granted a 15-day extension 
and responded on April 9, 2007. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he was miscounseled by his recruiter.  He also stated that since 
he  enlisted  in  the  SELRES  two  and  one-half  years  ago,  in  addition  to  performing  his  regular 
drills, he has served in Kuwait and Colombia, in the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief effort, at an 
AIS convention in Ft. Lauderdale, and in Sector Miami and Sector San Juan. 
 

PREVIOUS BCMR DECISIONS 

 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-027, the applicant stated that she had been promised a Level 
II $2000 SELRES enlistment bonus by her recruiter, and the bonus was noted on her enlistment 
contract.    However,  when  she  finished  recruit  training,  the  Coast  Guard  refused  to  honor that 
promise because she was technically ineligible for the bonus since she had never graduated from 
high school.  The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request.  He 
argued that, although the government is not estopped from repudiating erroneous advice given by 
its officials, relief should be granted because the bonus was promised her, she provided due con-
sideration for it, and acted promptly when she discovered the error.  The Board granted the appli-
cant’s request. 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-121, the applicant stated that he had been promised a Level II 
$2000  SELRES  enlistment  bonus  by  his  recruiter.    The  bonus  was  cited  on  his  enlistment 
contract and in a Page 7 dated the same day.  He did not receive the bonus because he was not 
assigned to a designated critical unit under the ALCOAST then in effect.  The Chief Counsel 
stated  that  the  contract  was  voidable  so  the  applicant  could  be  discharged  but  recommended 
against  granting  the  applicant  the  unauthorized  bonus.  The  Board,  however,  granted  relief, 
finding that while “the government may repudiate the erroneous advice of its officers or agents, 
… whenever reasonable, such promises should be kept, especially when the member relies on the 
erroneous advice and gives due consideration for the promised benefit.” 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-135, the applicant stated that she had been promised a Level 
II  $2000  SELRES  enlistment  bonus  by  her  recruiter.    The  bonus  was  not  mentioned  in  her 
contract but was documented on a Page 7 dated the day of her enlistment.  She did not receive the 
bonus  because  she  had  not  enlisted  in  a  critical  rating,  although  her  rating  was  listed  in  the 
applicable ALCOAST as one of those eligible for Level I bonuses if the members were assigned 
to a critical unit.  The Chief Counsel provided the same recommendation as in BCMR Docket 
No. 1999-121, and the Board granted relief for the reasons stated in that case as well.   
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 2004-063, the applicant stated upon his discharge after completing 
more than eight years of active duty, he enlisted in the SELRES and was promised a SELRES 
enlistment bonus.  His contract noted that he was “entitled to SELRES SRB as per ALCOAST 
192/03.”  However, that ALCOAST clearly authorized bonuses only for members being released 
to the Reserve, not for those being discharged and choosing to enlist in the SELRES.  The JAG 
recommended that the Board deny the requested relief but allow the applicant, at his disrection, 

to be honorably discharged for “Defective Enlistment Agreement,” with a KDS separation code1 
and an RE-1 reenlistment code.  The Board noted that the applicant was an experienced member 
of the Coast Guard and that even a cursory review of ALCOAST 192/03 showed that he was not 
eligible  for  the  SELRES  bonus.    Because  the  bonus  was  noted  in  the  enlistment  contract,  the 
Board found the contract to be voidable and granted the relief recommended by the JAG. 
 
 
In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2005-117,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  was  promised  a  $4000 
SELRES  enlistment bonus by his recruiter.  His enlistment contract cited a “RES BON PG7” 
along with the incorporated annexes, and the Page 7, dated the day of enlistment, documented the 
promised $4000 Level II bonus under ALCOAST 268/04.  He did not receive the bonus because 
he had not enlisted in a critical rating or been assigned to a critical unit.  Although the JAG rec-
ommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the Board granted relief, finding that 
the recruiter had promised the applicant the bonus as an enticement to enlist and that, “whenever 
reasonable, such promises should be kept, especially when the member relies on the erroneous 
advice and gives due consideration for the promised benefit.” 
 

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 applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

1. 

The application was timely. 
 

2. 

As the JAG pointed out, there are clear errors on the Page 7 signed by the appli-
cant and his recruiter on August 13, 2004.  First, the Page 7 purports to promise a bonus of $8000 
under ALCOAST 268/04, but that ALCOAST does not authorize an $8000 bonus for anyone.  
Second, the Page 7 purports to promise the bonus for just nine days of service through August 
22, 2004.  Finally, the Page 7 is dated ten days before the date of enlistment and is not mentioned 
anywhere on the enlistment contract.  On the other hand, it is signed by the applicant’s recruiter, 
and its very presence in the applicant’s military record indicates that the recruiter submitted it as 
an official record along with the applicant’s other enlistment papers. 

The applicant is not in the same position as any of the other applicants in recent 
SELRES bonus cases before this Board.  The promise of the bonus was not mentioned anywhere 
in his enlistment contract, as it was in BCMR Docket Nos. 2005-117, 2004-063, 1999-121, and 
1999-027.  Like the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 2004-063, he was clearly not eligible for 
what he was allegedly promised under the applicable ALCOAST, but unlike that applicant, he 
was  not  an  experienced  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  who  would  or  should  know  to  read  an 
ALCOAST thoroughly.  The enlistment contract of the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 1999-135 
was—like the applicant’s contract—silent about a bonus, but her record contained a Page 7 that 
—unlike  the  applicant’s—was  signed  on  the  day  of  her  enlistment  and  promised  a  bonus  she 
might reasonably have thought she was eligible for under the ALCOAST then in effect.. 

 
3. 

 

                                                 
1  Under the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook, a KDS code denotes a “voluntary discharge allowed 
by established directive resulting from non-fulfillment of service contract.” 

4. 

Given the early date and other errors in the applicant’s Page 7 purporting to prom-
ise an unauthorized $8000 bonus, as well as the lack of any mention of a bonus in the enlistment 
contract, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant is entitled to the requested relief.  How-
ever, the recruiter’s signature on the Page 7 and the fact that it was entered in the applicant’s 
military record indicate that the Coast Guard erred by promising him a larger enlistment bonus 
than the $4000 Level II bonus he was actually entitled to under ALCOAST 268/04. 

The JAG recommended that the Board deny relief.  Although the Government is 
not estopped from repudiating the bad promises made by its employees,2 this Board has “an abid-
ing moral sanction to determine . . . the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to 
grant thorough and fitting relief."3  On the applicant’s Page 7, his signature attests to his having 
read and fully understood ALCOAST 268/04.  The applicant’s record indicates that English may 
not be his first language.  However, the figure $8000 does not appear anywhere in ALCOAST 
268/04.  Even someone who merely scanned the ALCOAST without much comprehension could 
not reasonably conclude that an $8000 bonus was authorized for anyone. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

In light of the errors, the Board finds that the applicant’s enlistment contract is 
voidable  and  that  he  should  have  the  option  of  being  expeditiously  discharged.    The  Board 
realizes that, should the applicant choose to be expeditiously discharged from the Reserve, the 
Coast Guard might attempt to recoup all or part of the $4000 Level II enlistment bonus he has 
rightfully  received.    The  Board  believes  that  such  recoupment  would  be unjust in light of the 
promise made to the applicant on the Page 7 dated August 13, 2004.  The Board notes that the 
applicant  has  already  completed  almost  half  of  the  six  years  in  the  SELRES  for  which  he 
expected to receive $8000.  Therefore, if he elects to be discharged, the applicant would have 
received approximately one-half of the bonus he expected to receive in exchange for approxi-
mately one-half of the years of inactive duty he expected to provide.  If the applicant elects to be 
discharged and if the Coast Guard then recoups his enlistment bonus, the applicant could apply to 
this Board for relief from the recoupment. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied but some relief should be 
granted by offering the applicant the opportunity to be expeditiously separated from the Reserve 
with an honorable discharge for “Defective Enlistment Agreement,” a KDS separation code, and 
an RE-1 reenlistment code.  If the applicant elects discharge and if the Coast Guard recoups all or 
part of his enlistment bonus, he may apply to this Board to request relief from the recoupment. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
2 Montilla v. United States, 457 F.2d 978 (Ct. Cl. 1972); Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. 
denied sub nom Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977). 
3 In Yee v. United states, 512 F. 2d 1383, 1387, the Claims Court stated that military corrections boards "have an 
abiding moral sanction to determine . . . the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to grant thorough and 
fitting relief."    

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his military 
record  is  denied,  except  that,  at  his  discretion,  he  may  be  expeditiously  separated  from  the 
Reserve with an honorable discharge for “Defective Enlistment Agreement,” a KDS separation 
code, and an RE-1 reenlistment code.   

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton