DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-124 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxx 

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 May 7, 2008, upon receipt of 
the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff members D. Hale and 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  January  8,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  boatswain’s  mate  third  class  (BM3),  in  the  Coast  Guard  Selected 
Reserve (SELRES), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to a $6,000 
college  credit  enlistment  bonus  for  signing  a  six-year  Reserve  enlistment  contract  on  July  31, 
2007.  He alleged that although his Coast Guard recruiter promised him a $6,000 college credit 
enlistment bonus, the Coast Guard has refused to pay him the bonus.   
 

In support of his allegation, the applicant submitted a copy of “Annex ‘T’: Enlisted Bonus 
for College Credit,” signed by himself and his recruiter, which states the following in pertinent 
part: 

 

 

 

 

 
An  original  and  three  copes  of  this  form  shall  be  prepared.    It  will  become  an  Annex  to  the 
Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States (DD-4). 
 
 
 
Prior  to  enlisting  in  the  United  States  Coast  Guard  and  receiving  an  Enlistment  Bonus,  I 
[applicant’s name], understand that: 
 
1. 

I have been offered an Enlistment Bonus of $    0    to affiliate with the   N/A   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. 

Date: May 13, 2007 

 

 

 
2. 

3. 

4. 

 

 

Furthermore, I have been offered an Enlistment Bonus for College Credit of _6000  for 
having attained _113_ Semester Hours or __N/A__ hours of Technical School. 

I agree to enlist for four (4) years in the rating for which the bonus is paid.  Therefore, if I 
am a prior service member with a qualifying skill or specialty, I will enlist in the eligible 
rating for at least four years or if I am a non prior service member, I will be assigned to a 
Class  “A”  school  or  enrolled  into  a  “Striker”  program  for  the  eligible  rating  identified 
above. 

Any enlistment bonus I am entitled to as a result of this annex will be paid to me in one 
lump sum payment.  If I am a non-prior service member, this payment will occur after 
successful  completion  of  recruit  training  and  Class  “A”  school  or  advancement  to  pay 
grade E-4 from the striker advancement eligibility list for an eligible rating that does not 
have  an  associated  “A”  school.    If  I  am  prior  service  member  who  already  has  the 
qualifying  skill,  this  payment  will  be  made  upon  my  arrival  at  my  Permanent  Duty 
Station. 

 

 

. 

The  applicant  also  submitted  an  e-mail  from  YN1  B  at  the  USCG  Recruiting  Office 
Newark to YN2 S at the TRACEN Cape May Recruit PERSRU division, dated August 13, 2007.  
In the e-mail, YN1 B states that the applicant’s college credit enlistment bonus was approved 
when  she  put  in  his  reservation,  but  that  “[w]hen  they  realized  they  had  made  an  error,  they 
removed it.”  She also stated in the e-mail “[y]ou can remove the Annex T and inform him [the 
applicant] that due to him being a reservist, it is only an active duty incentive.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On May 13, 2007, the applicant and his recruiter signed Annex “T” to document that the 
applicant had been promised a $6,000 college credit enlistment bonus for agreeing to enlist.  On 
July 31, 2007, the applicant enlisted in the SELRES for six years.  The annex, with the promise 
of the $6,000 enlistment bonus is entered in his official military record and incorporated in his 
enlistment contract by reference.  Block B of the applicant’s enlistment contract incorporated all 
of the following documents by reference: 

 
•  Annex A is a statement of understanding for original enlistment in the Coast Guard. 
•  Annex G affirms that the applicant will enlisted in the pay grade E-3 because he had 
completed at least 60 semester hours or 90 quarter hours as a college student. 
•  Annex P affirms that the applicant will begin basic training on July 31, 2007. 
•  Annex  T  affirms  that  the  applicant  was  promised  a  $6,000  enlistment  bonus  for 
college credit. 
•  Annex  U  concerns  the  applicant’s  eligibility  for  educational  benefits  under  the 
Montgomery G.I. Bill. 

In Block D of the contract, the applicant signed below the following statement:   
 
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 GUARAN-

TEES  MADE  TO  ME  BY  ANYONE  ARE  WRITTEN  BELOW:  (If  none,  X  “NONE”  and 
initial.)  NONE   [applicant’s initials]    (Initials of enlistee/reenlistee) 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  24,  2008,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.  
The JAG admitted that the record “does document that Applicant was advised in an Annex “T” 
form  (CG-3301T) dated 13 May 2007, that he was eligible for a $6,000 enlistment bonus for 
college  credit.”      However,  the  JAG  alleged,  the  Annex  “T”  was  “invalid,  erroneous,  and 
unauthorized” because Article 3.A.2.3. of the Coast Personnel Manual states that one must enlist 
for at least four years on active duty to receive an enlistment bonus.  The JAG stated that the 
applicant enlisted in the Reserve, and not on active duty.  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 2, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the JAG’s advisory opinion 

 
 
and invited him to respond within thirty days.  The Board did not receive a response. 
 

ALCOAST 064/07 was issued on February 5, 2007, and states the following: 
 
3.  SELRES ENLISTMENT BONUS 
  A. Eligibility Requirements for initial enlistment (new accession with no prior military service) 
under the RP, RK, RX, or RA programs:  Applicant must enlist in the IV, MK, or OS ratings for at 
least  six  years  and  must  complete  initial  active  duty  for  training  (IADT).    Applicants  must  be 
assigned  a  vacant  billet.    Applicants  assigned  to  an  overbilleted  or  unbudgeted  position  are  not 
authorized to receive this bonus.  
  
  B.    Bonus  Amount:    A  total  of  $6,000  dollars  is  authorized  to  be  paid  in  two  equal  amounts.  
3,000 dollars may be paid upon completion of IADT and 3,000 dollars may be paid one year later 
if participation standards contained in Chapter 4 of Ref C have been met.  IADT consists of basic 
training and reserve enlisted basic indoctrination (REBI) plus A-School completion if required. 

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  3.A.1.  of  the  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.2.3.  of  the  manual  states  that  in  order  to  receive  an  enlistment  bonus, 
members must agree to enlist for at least four years of active duty in a skill determined as critical. 

 
 
Article 3.A.9. of the manual contains the enlistment bonus agreements annexes (Annexes 
T, T.1 and T.2), used by the Coast Guard to document the eligibility criteria and conditions under 
which an enlistment bonus is paid. 
 

 

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 appli-
cant’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. 1999-121, the applicant stated that he had been promised a Level II 
$2,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter.  The bonus was cited on his enlistment con-
tract  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, find-
ing 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 $2,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by her recruiter.  The bonus was not mentioned in her con-
tract 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 appli-
cable 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.  2005-117,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  was  promised  a  $4,000 
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 $4,000 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.” 
 
In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2007-006,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  promised  a  $2,000 
 
SELRES enlistment bonus for enlisting in the health services rating as well as a $6,000 bonus for 
having a certain number of college credits.  His enlistment contract incorporated Annex T, which 
documented  the  promised  bonuses.    However,  he  received  only the $6,000 bonus because the 
health services rating was not one of the critical ratings eligible for the $2,000 bonus.  Although 
the JAG recommended 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, i.e., a four-year enlist-
ment in the Coast Guard.”   
 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2007-207,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  promised  a  $6,000 
SELRES  enlistment  bonus  for  enlisting  to  serve  as  a  PS3  at  a  port  security  unit  (PSU).    The 
promise of the bonus was documented on a Page 7 and the Page 7 was cited on his enlistment 
contract.  ALCOAST 093/05, however, authorized payment of only a $4,000 bonus because the 
applicant was to be assigned to a critical unit—the PSU—but PS3 was not listed as a critical rat-
ing.  Although the JAG recommended that the Board deny relief, the Board granted relief finding 
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  six-year 
enlistment  in  the  SELRES.”    The  Board  also  found  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 when the recruits give due consideration for the promised benefit.” 

 
In BCMR Docket No. 2008-048, the applicant alleged that he was promised an $8,000 
SELRES  enlistment  bonus  by  his  recruiter  for  enlisting  in  the  SELRES  for  six  years  and 
completing  marine  science  technician  (MST)  “A”  School.    The  promise  of  the  bonus  was 
documented on a Page 7.  The applicant did not receive the bonus because the recruiter cited an 
incorrect ALCOAST, and the applicant was not eligible for a bonus under the ALCOAST that 
was actually in effect.  Although the JAG recommended that the Board deny relief, the Board 
granted relief finding that the Coast Guard’s refusal to pay him the “bonus he was promised and 
for which he has given due consideration by enlisting for six years constitutes an injustice that 
must be corrected.”   
 

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. 

 
3. 

The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard 
erred when his recruiter promised him a $6,000 college credit bonus for enlisting for six years in 
the  SELRES.    His  recruiter  documented  the  promise  of  a  bonus  on  an  Annex  “T”  dated  two 
months before the applicant signed the enlistment contract and incorporated Annex “T” in his 
reenlistment contract dated July 13, 2007, by reference.  Both the contract and Annex “T” were 
entered in the applicant’s official military record.  However, the Coast Guard has refused to pay 
him  the  promised  bonus  and  claims that reservists are ineligible for enlistment bonuses under 
Article 3.A.2.3. of the Personnel Manual.   

ALCOAST 064/07 was in effect when the applicant signed the enlistment contract 
on July 31, 2007.  ALCOAST 064/07 authorized a SELRES enlistment bonus for recruits signing 
a  six-year  SELRES  contract,  but  only  if  they  elected  to  enlist  in  the  IV,  MK,  or  OS  ratings.  
There was no enlistment bonus for SELRES recruits enlisting in the BM rate. 

4. 

The JAG argued that the Board should deny the requested relief because the appli-
cant was not eligible for an enlistment bonus.  However, the record indicates that the recruiter 
promised  the  applicant  the  enlistment  bonus  as  an  enticement  to  enlist  for  six  years  in  the 
SELRES.    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 six-year enlistment in the SELRES.  Although the Government is not 
estopped from repudiating the bad promises made by its employees,1 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.”2    The  applicant’s  recruiter  promised  him  the  $6,000  bonus  for 
enlisting,  and the applicant has already given consideration on the contract by enlisting in the 
SELRES for six years.  Since he had never been a member of the Coast Guard, he had to rely on 
his recruiter to ascertain his entitlements.  There is no evidence that the applicant would have 
enlisted in the Coast Guard SELRES had he not been promised the $6,000 bonus.  Releasing the 
applicant from the contract by discharging him more than a year later would not correct the error 
or remove the injustice that has been done.   
 

5. 

The  facts  of  this  case  are  very  similar  to  the facts in the prior cases summarized 
above.  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  most  cases  the  JAG  has  recommended  denying  the  applicants  the 
unauthorized bonuses.  In all these cases, the Board granted relief, finding that although the gov-
ernment is not estopped from repudiating the advice of its employees, the promises made by the 
Coast  Guard  to  new  recruits  should  be  kept  when  the  recruits  give  due  consideration  for  the 
promised benefit.  Moreover, the applicant should have been able to rely on the advice provided 
by his recruiter, who was a yeoman first class designated by the Coast Guard as a recruiter – the 
primary source of information for anyone interested in enlisting in the Reserve. 
 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted assuming he meets or has met 
the requirements of paragraph 4 of Annex “T” by completing his initial training and Class “A” 
School or by being advanced to BM3 from a striker advancement eligibility list.   
 

 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 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). 
2 Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959).   

The application of BM3 XXXXXXXXXX, USCGR, for correction of his military record 

ORDER 

 

is granted as follows: 
 

If he meets or has met the participation standards under Paragraph 4 of the Annex “T” 
incorporated  by  reference  in  his  enlistment  contract  dated  July  31,  2007,  his  record  shall  be 
corrected to show that he is eligible for and entitled to the $6,000 enlistment bonus for college 
credit that he was promised on the Annex “T” dated May 13, 2007.   

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount due as a result of a correction made to his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record pursuant to this order.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 Diane Donley 

 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter