DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-044 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

 

 

 

 

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 December 19, 2007, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

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 order the Coast Guard to pay him a $7,000.00 Com-
bined Reserve Bonus.  He did not make any allegations of error on his application form, but in 
support of this request, he submitted the following documents: 

 

•  A copy of a Reserve enlistment contract, which indicates that on February 6, 2003, in San 
Diego, California, the applicant enlisted for six years.  Block B.8. on page 1 of this docu-
ment incorporates by reference “ANNEX N SIX YEAR ENLISTMENT, $7000.00 COM-
BINED RESERVE BONUS.”  Above his signature and that of the recruiter on page 2, the 
contract states, “I fully understand that only those agreements in Section B of this docu-
ment or recorded on the attached annex(es) will be honored.” 
 

•  A copy of an “Annex N: Statement of Understanding,” which was signed by the recruiter 
on December 8, 2003, and by the applicant on December 9, 2003.  It states that the appli-
cant would enter the Reserve “RX” program of the Selected Reserve and would undergo 
Reserve  Enlisted  Basic  Indoctrination  (REBI)  beginning  on  January  11,  2004.    It  also 
spells out other participation requirements, such as attending at least 90% of all scheduled 
drills  and  performing  12  days  of  active  duty  for  training  annually  during  the  six-year 
contract.  The annex does not contain any language about a bonus. 
 

•  A series of email messages dated from November 13 to 21, 2007, in which the Personnel 
Services  Center  (PSC)  notes  that  the  applicant  had  requested  a  $7,000.00  Reserve 

enlistment bonus pursuant to language on his reenlistment contract but that he was not 
entitled to any of the authorized bonuses.  A PSC Military Pay Technician advised the 
applicant’s command that when he enlisted on February 6, 2003, there was no such thing 
as a $7,000.00 Combined Reserve Bonus. 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 
On February 6, 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Reserve for six years in pay grade E-6.  
He had more than eleven years of prior military service in the Navy.  The enlistment contract in 
his record is different from the one submitted by the applicant in that Block B.8. states “ANNEX 
N SIX YEAR ENLISTMENT” and does not mention any bonus.  This contract was also signed 
by the applicant and the same recruiter in San Diego on February 6, 2003. 

 
The applicant’s record also contains an Annex “N” that was signed the day of his enlist-
ment, February 6, 2003.  This first Annex “N” deviates from the one submitted by the applicant 
only in that it states that he would begin REBI on July 13, 2003.  

 
The  applicant  completed  REBI  on  January  23,  2004,  and  has  since  been  assigned  at 
various  times  to  an  Electronics  Systems  Detachment  in  San  Diego,  an  Integrated  Support 
Command in Alameda, and a deployable Port Security Unit.  He stopped serving in the Selected 
Reserve on February 11, 2007, and was transferred to the IRR on June 13, 2007. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

 

 
On May 20, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The 
JAG stated that the applicant’s official enlistment contract in his military record states only “AN-
NEX N SIX YEAR ENLISTMENT” in block B.8.  He stated that this contract and the Annex 
“N” dated February 6, 2003, “are correct and valid.” 

 
In  addition,  the  JAG  stated  that  when  the  applicant  enlisted  on  February  6,  2003, 
ALCOAST 231/02 was in effect and it authorized a combined bonus only for members perma-
nently assigned to Naval Coastal Warfare Forces units.  The JAG stated that the applicant was 
never assigned to such a unit. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 30, 2008, the applicant responded to the JAG’s advisory opinion.  He stated that 

 
he “do[es] not disagree with the recommendation.”   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

ALCOAST  231/02,  issued  on  May  6,  2002,  announced  “Selected  Reserve  (SELRES) 
Bonus Amounts/Eligibility,” which went into effect immediately.  The ALCOAST contains the 
following eligibility requirements: 

 
3.  Reserve bonuses offer an extra incentive to fill ratings and billets experiencing critical short-
ages,  particularly  at  Naval  Coastal  Warfare  Forces  Units  (Port  Security  Units  (PSU),  Naval 
Coastal Warfare Groups (NCWG) and Harbor Defense Command Units (HDCU) and  Maritime 
Safety and Security Teams (MSST)). … 
 
4.  Additional Eligibility Requirements: 
 
A.  For initial enlistments or prior service enlistments, to receive a Level I or Level II 
bonus, personnel must agree to be assigned to a vacant RPAL billet at a Naval Coastal Warfare 
Forces Unit or a MSST. … 
 
B.  Personnel receiving a bonus  must complete a  full tour (05 years) at Naval  Coastal 
Warfare Forces Units, or a full tour (04 years) at a MSST, to avoid bonus recoupment unless needs 
of the Service require otherwise. … 
 
5.  For Reenlistments/extensions into the SELRES.  No bonus at this time. 
 
6.  For Initial enlistments, the following bonus amounts and eligibility apply: 
 
A.    Level  I  Bonus  –  For  a  six-year  contract,  5000  dollars  (2,500  dollars  paid  upon 
completion of IADT, and 2,500 dollars paid one year later).  Level I bonuses are authorized for 
member enlisting under the RP, RK, or RX programs who agree to serve in the MK, BM, PS, FS, 
TC, YN or ET ratings and be permanently assigned to Naval Coastal Warfare Forces units. 
 
B.    Level  II  Bonus  –  For  a  six-year  contract,  2,000  dollars  (1,000  dollars  paid  upon 
completion of IADT, and 1,000 dollars paid one year later).  Level II bonuses are authorized for 
members enlisting under the RP, RK, or RX programs who agree to serve in the GM or DC ratings 
and be permanently assigned to Naval Coastal Warfare Forces units.  Level II bonuses are author-
ized for all enlisted personnel, regardless of rating, permanently assigned to MSSTs. 

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. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in her record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  Although the applicant alleged 
that he discovered the error on November 1, 2007, he knew or should have known that he had 
not been paid an enlistment bonus when he did not receive the first half of the bonus upon com-
pleting IADT/REBI on January 23, 2004.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 

1. 
 
2.  

 
3. 

longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review.”  Id. at 164, 165.  

The applicant failed to explain why he did not timely seek the bonus.  Moreover, 
the enlistment contract he submitted is not the same as the enlistment contract submitted by his 
recruiter for entry into his official military record.  The contract in his military record reflects no 
promise of any bonus.  While the applicant’s submission indicates that at one point the recruiter 
may have told the applicant he might be eligible for a bonus, the contract in his military record 
proves that the applicant agreed to enlist without a bonus.  In the absence of a statement from the 
recruiter supporting the applicant’s allegation of error (i.e., supporting his implicit claim that the 
version of the contract showing a promise of a bonus reflects their final understanding and was 
the  final  contract  approved  by  the  Recruiting  Command),  the  contract  that  was  entered  in  his 
military record is presumptively correct. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  In addition, the Board notes that 
the applicant was not otherwise entitled to an enlistment bonus under ALCOAST 231/02 because 
he was not permanently assigned to a Naval Coastal Warfare Forces unit or a Maritime Security 
and Safety Team. 

Accordingly, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in 

this case, and the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

The application of ET1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of 

ORDER 

 

his Coast Guard military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer