DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-121 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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  June  2,  1999,  upon  the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  30,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant is a xxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard Reserve.  He asked the Board to 
order the Coast Guard to pay him a Reserve enlistment bonus that he was promised in 
writing when he enlisted in the Reserve on May 25, 199x. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that when he enlisted in the Reserve, he was promised an 
enlistment  bonus  of  $2,000.    He  alleged  that  he  signed  documents  indicating  that  his 
enlistment would entitle him to receive the bonus.  He alleged that he has unjustly been 
denied the bonus he was promised. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
 
On  May  25,  199x,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  xxx.    He 
signed an enlistment contract (DD Form 4/1) indicating in block B that he was enlisting 
for four years and would receive a “reserve bonus.”  Block D of the contract requires the 

member to sign the following statement: “I fully understand that only those agreements 
in section b of this document or recorded on the attached annex(es) will be honored.” 
 
In addition, the applicant signed an Administrative Remarks (page 7) stating that 
 
the applicant was eligible for a Level 2 Selective Reserve Enlistment Bonus and that his 
bonus would be “computed based on 72 [sic] months of obligated service.”  The page 7 
also  requires  the  applicant  to  acknowledge  that  he  has  read  and  understood  the 
contents of COMDTINST 7220.1, the Commandant’s Instruction for Reserve bonuses. 
 
 
On March 1, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) wrote a letter to the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command asking that the applicant be paid the bonus he was 
promised.  The CO stated that the petty officer who recruited the applicant promised 
him an enlistment bonus and was unaware that to receive a bonus, a member enlisting 
in the xx rating had to be assigned to a xxxx. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 14, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the  Board  “grant  relief”  not  by  awarding  the  applicant  the  promised  bonus  but  by 
giving him a choice of three options: 
 

•  Correct his enlistment contract to show that he entered a rating that quali-
fies him for a bonus under ALDIST 072/98 (he would also have to attend 
“A” School in the new rating). 
 

•  Void his enlistment contract and award him an honorable discharge. 

•  Continue in his current enlistment and rating without receiving a bonus 

 

(the status quo). 

 

 

The Chief Counsel admitted that the applicant’s recruiter promised him a bonus 
upon  enlistment  but  alleged  that  “the  Coast  Guard  has  no  legal  authority  to  pay  the 
Applicant the [bonus] promised.”  Because ALDIST 072/98 did not authorize bonuses 
for members in the xx rating unless they were assigned to xx units, “the Coast Guard is 
barred from paying the Applicant.” 
 

The Chief Counsel also argued that the government is not estopped from repudi-
ating  the  inaccurate  advice  of  the  applicant’s  recruiter  even  assuming  the  applicant 
detrimentally relied on the bad advice.  Utah Power & Light v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 
409 (1917).  For example, the Chief Counsel argued, in Montilla v. United States, 457 F.2d 
978 (Ct. Cl. 1972),  

 

the Court of Claims held that the misrepresentations of officers of the U.S. Army 
to  the  plaintiff,  leading  him  to  believe  that  he  had  completed  twenty  years  of 
active  military  service  and  was  thus  eligible  for  retirement  pay  upon  reaching 
age  sixty,  could  not  alter  the  fact  that  the plaintiff had not actually completed 
twenty years of active service as computed under 10 U.S.C. § 1332 (1964).  The 
Montilla court reasoned that unless a law has been repealed or declared uncon-
stitutional by the courts, it is a part of the supreme law of the land and no officer 
or  agency  can  by  his  actions  or  conduct  waive  its  provisions  or  nullify  its 
enforcement. 457 F.2d at 987. 
 
The Chief Counsel also quoted the following passage from Goldberg v. Weinberger, 

546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977): 

 
The  government  could  scarcely  function  if  it  were  bound  by  its  employees 
unauthorized  representations.    Where  a  party  claims  entitlement  to  benefits 
under  federal  statutes  and  lawfully  promulgated  regulations,  that  party  must 
satisfy  the  requirements  imposed  by  Congress.    Even  detrimental  reliance  on 
misinformation obtained from a seemingly authorized government agency will 
not  excuse  a  failure  to  qualify  for  the  benefits  under  the  relevant  statutes  and 
regulations.  Id. at 481. 
 
Therefore,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  because  the  recruiter’s  “advice  was 
contrary to the applicable statute, 37 U.S.C. § 308, and the Coast Guard’s regulations as 
established in COMDTINST 7220.1A,” the Coast Guard cannot waive the statutes and 
regulations to pay the applicant the promised bonus.  However, he stated “in the inter-
ests  of  justice,  the  Coast  Guard  recommends  that  Applicant  be  provided  the  options 
detailed [above].” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 19, 1999, the Chairman of the BCMR sent a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s advisory opinion to the applicant and invited him to respond.  The applicant did 
not respond.   

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

  
 
According  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(a)(1),  “[t]he  Secretary  of  a  military  department 
may  correct  any  military  record  of  the  Secretary’s  department  when  the  Secretary 
considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.” 
 

ALDIST 072/98, issued on March 20, 1998, announced the continuation of bonus-
es for certain Reserve members who enlisted, reenlisted, or extended their enlistments 
before September 30, 1998. Xxxxx assigned to a xxxxxx were authorized to receive Level 
II  bonuses  of  $2,000  if  they  obligated  themselves  to  perform  six  additional  years  of 
service.  If the member had prior service, he or she could receive a Level II bonus of 

$1,000 for enlisting for at least three years.  No bonus was provided for xxx not assigned 
to a xxxx billet. 

 
Enclosure (4) to COMDTINST 7220.1A, issued on February 5, 1998, contains the 
 
terms  of  the  Selected  Reserve  (SELRES)  Enlisted  Bonus  Program  for  members  with 
prior military service.  One criterion for receiving a bonus is that the member “hold a 
bonus-eligible permanent rating or be assigned to a bonus-eligible billet or unit listed in 
the current ALDIST bonus message at the time of enlistment.”  
 

PREVIOUS BCMR DECISION 

 
 
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 recom-
mended  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 she acted promptly when she discovered the error.  The Board 
granted the applicant’s request. 
 

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 application was timely. 

 

 
3. 

 
4. 

2. 

Under COMDTINST 7220.1A and ALDIST 072/98, members who enlisted 
in the xxxx rating were only eligible for a bonus if they were assigned to a xxxxx.  The 
applicant,  apparently, was not assigned to a xxxxx.  Therefore, although his recruiter 
promised him a bonus, he was not legally eligible for one. 

The Coast Guard erred when it told the applicant he would be eligible for 
an enlistment bonus if he enlisted in the xxxxx rating even though he was not assigned 
to a xxxxxx.   

The Chief Counsel argued that the Board should deny relief because the 
government is not estopped from repudiating the advice of its employees.  However, 
just because the government may repudiate the erroneous advice of its officers does not 
mean  that  the  government  should  always  do  so.    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. 

The  facts  of  this  case  are  very  similar  to  the  facts  in  BCMR  Docket  No. 
1999-027.    Like  the  applicant  in  that  case,  the  applicant  in  this  case  was  promised  an 
enlistment  bonus  by  his  recruiter,  gave  due  consideration  for  the  bonus,  and  acted 
promptly  upon  discovering  the  error.    However,  in  Docket  No.  1999-027,  the  Chief 
Counsel recommended that the Board grant relief.  Therefore, although the government 
is not estopped from repudiating the advice of its employees, the Board sees no reason 
why the result in this case should be different than that in Docket No. 1999-027. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXX,  USCGR,  is 
hereby granted.  His records shall be corrected to show that he was eligible for the Level 
II  enlistment  bonus  he  was  promised  in  his  enlistment  contract,  dated  May  25,  199x.  
The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  the  amount  he  is  due  as  a  result  of  this 
correction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 
 
Thomas A. Phemister 

        

 

 
Michael K. Nolan