DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-006 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxxxxx, HS3 

 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Hale, D. 
 
 
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  October  16,  2006,  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 26, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed members 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a health services technician, third class (HS3), asked the Board to correct 
his  record  to  show  that  he  is  entitled  to  a  $2000  enlistment  bonus  for  signing  a  four-year 
enlistment contract on February 9, 2006.  He alleged that his Coast Guard recruiter promised him 
a $5000 bonus for college credit and a $2000 bonus because he (the applicant) had prior military 
service.  The applicant stated that he never received the $2000 bonus.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  served  in  the  U.S.  Navy  from December 1999 through September 2004.  
On  February  9,  2006,  he  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of  four  years.    He  signed  an 
enlistment  contract  (DD  Form  4/1)  indicating  in  block  B  (AGREEMENTS)  that  additional 
details of the contract appeared in Annexes A, G, and T.  Annex T states, inter alia:   

 
1.    I  have  been  offered  an  Enlistment  Bonus  of  $    2000    to  affiliate  with  the 
________ rating.  In order to affiliate with this rating, I have been offered a Type 
1 guaranteed school, or guaranteed enrollment to an eligible “Striker” program, 
or  I  am  a  prior  service  member  who  is  already  qualified  in  the  skill/rating  in 
accordance with eligibility criteria established by the Coast Guard. 
 

On February 27, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  relief  requested  but  grant  the 
applicant alternate relief.  The JAG stated that the applicant was erroneously promised that he 
would receive a $2000 enlistment bonus for affiliating with the HS rating.  The JAG stated that 
Article 3.A.3.2. of the Personnel Manual only awarded bonuses to members who enlisted in a 
critical rating and that the applicant’s HS rating was not a critical rating.  Moreover, the JAG 
stated that the line on Annex T showing the affiliation rating was left blank.     

 
The  JAG  recommended  that  the  Board  offer  the  applicant  two  options.    First,  the 
applicant could have his record corrected by voiding the enlistment contract and be immediately 
discharged.  The JAG noted that if the applicant selects this option, he would be responsible for 
reimbursing  the  Coast  Guard  for  any  enlistment  bonus  he  has  already  received.    As  a  second 
option, the Coast Guard recommended that the applicant maintain the status quo and have his 
record corrected to show that he was only eligible to receive the $5000 enlistment bonus for his 
college credit.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
and invited him to respond.  No response was received.  

On March 1, 2007, the Chair sent a copy of the JAG’s advisory opinion to the applicant 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

2.  Furthermore, I have been offered an Enlistment Bonus for College Credit of 
[$]  5000  for  having  attained  ______  Semester  Hours  or  _____  hours  of 
Technical School. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

Article  3.A.1.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  Enlistment  Bonus 
program is an incentive to attract qualified personnel to critical skills or ratings to help meet the 
Coast Guard’s recruiting goals.  The program applies to new enlistees. 
 
 
Article 3.A.3.2. of the Personnel Manual states that enlistment bonuses are linked to a 
member's recruitment and affiliation with a critical rating by attending a guaranteed Class "A" 
school  or  participating  in  a  guaranteed  “Striker”  program  in  that  rating  or,  for  prior  service 
personnel who already have the qualifying skill, agreeing to enlist in the designated rating for a 
minimum of four years.  
 
 
Article  3.A.9.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  Enlistment  Bonus  Agreements 
(Annexes  T,  T.1  and  T.2)  document  the  eligibility  criteria  and  conditions  under  which  an 
enlistment bonus is paid. 
 

ALCOAST 645/05 was issued on December 17, 2005, and went into effect on January 1, 
2006.  It was issued to identify vacancies in critical ratings and to encourage the recruitment of 
qualified prior service members to fill those vacancies.  There are 16 critical ratings identified on 
the list, but the HS rating is not one of them. 

 

PREVIOUS BCMR DECISIONS 

 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment 
bonus by her recruiter.  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  consideration  for  it,  and  acted  promptly  when she discovered the error.  
The Board granted the applicant’s request. 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 2005-117, the applicant was promised an enlistment bonus by his 
recruiter.    He  did  not  receive  the  bonus  because  the  Coast  Guard  determined  that  he  was  not 
eligible  because  he  had  not  enlisted  in  a  critical  rating  or  a  rating  assigned  to  a  critical  unit.  
Although  the  JAG  recommended  denying  relief,  the  Board  granted  relief,  finding  that  it  was 
likely that the recruiter promised the applicant the bonus as an enticement to enlist in a particular 
rating  and  to  accept  an  assignment  to  Group  Long  Island  Sound.    The  Board  stated  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. 

The  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  when  the  recruiter  promised  the 
applicant that he would receive a $2000 enlistment bonus because of his prior military service.  
At  the  time  of  his  enlistment,  the  applicant’s  rating  (HS)  had  not  been  identified  as  a  critical 
rating, and ALCOAST 645/05 did not provide a bonus for prior service members who enlisted in 
the Coast Guard in the HS rating.  Therefore, although his recruiter promised him a bonus and 
memorialized that promise on Annex T to his enlistment contract, the applicant did not meet the 
eligibility requirements for the bonus under ALCOAST 645/05.  

The  JAG  argued  that  the  Board  should  deny  the  requested  relief  because  the 
applicant was not eligible for the enlistment bonus.  However, the Board finds it likely that the 
recruiter  promised  the  applicant  the  bonus  as  further  enticement  to  enlist  in  the  Coast  Guard.  
The Board believes 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, i.e., 
a four-year enlistment in the Coast Guard. 

Although  the  Government  is  not  estopped  from  repudiating  the  bad  promises 
made  by  its  employees  (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. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

937 (1977)), this Board has “an abiding moral sanction to determine . . . the true nature of an 
alleged  injustice  and  to  take  steps  to  grant  thorough  and  fitting  relief."1    The  Coast  Guard 
recommended  that  the  Board  offer  the  applicant  the  choice  of  having  his  enlistment  contract 
voided  and  being  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard,  or  having  his  record  show  that  he  was 
entitled  only  to  the  $5000  enlistment  bonus  for  his  college  credit.   However,  the  applicant’s 
recruiter  promised  him  both  the  $5000  bonus  and  the  $2000  bonus  for  enlisting,  and  the 
applicant has already given consideration on the contract by enlisting in the Coast Guard.  Since 
he was not already a member of the Coast Guard, he had to rely on his recruiter to inform him of 
his entitlements.  There is no evidence that he would have enlisted had he not been promised the 
$2000  bonus  as  well  as  the  $5000  bonus.   Discharging  him  more  than  a  year  later  would  not 
correct  the  error  or  remove  the  injustice  that  has  been  done,  especially  because  his  discharge 
would also result in the recoupment of the $5000 bonus.  The Board finds that the Coast Guard’s 
recommended corrections are inadequate to remedy the injustice committed in this case as they 
would not provide “thorough and fitting relief.”  Id.     

The facts of this case are very similar to the facts in BCMR Docket Nos. 1999-
027 and 2005-117.  Like the applicants in those cases, the applicant in this case was promised an 
enlistment bonus by his recruiter although he did not meet the eligibility requirements, and gave 
due consideration for the bonus.  In Docket No. 1999-027, the Chief Counsel recommended that 
the Board grant relief, but in 2005-117, the JAG recommended denying relief.  In both cases, the 
Board granted relief, finding that although the government is not estopped from repudiating the 
advice of its employees, the promises made by the Coast Guard to new recruits should be kept 
where they give due consideration for the promised benefit. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 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."   Citing Duhon v. United States, 471 F. 2d 1278, 1281, quoting Caddington v. United States, 178 F. 
Supp. 604, 607, (1959).   

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  HS3  XXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military  record  is  granted.    His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  eligible  for  the 
$2000  enlistment  bonus  he  was  promised  in  Annex  T  to  his  February  9,  2006,  enlistment 
contract.  The Coast Guard shall pay him the amount due as a result of this correction.   

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young