DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-135 
 
   

 

 
 

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 24, 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 seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1) in the Coast Guard Reserve.  
She asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay her a Reserve enlistment bonus 
that she was promised in writing when she enlisted in the Reserve on April 27, 199x. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that when she enlisted in the Reserve, she agreed to go into 
either the xxxxxx or xxxxxx rating and she was promised a Level II enlistment bonus.  
She alleged that although she signed documents indicating that her enlistment would 
entitle  her  to  receive  the  bonus,  she  has  unjustly  been  denied  the  bonus  she  was 
promised. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
On April 27, 199x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for a term of 
 
eight years.  She signed an enlistment contract (DD Form 4/1) indicating in block B that 
additional details of the enlistment appeared in Annex L to the contract.  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.  Any other promises or guarantees made to me by anyone 
are written below:  If none, X “NONE” and initial.)”  The “NONE” box has an “X” in it 
and is initialed by the applicant.  Annex L, which is incorporated into the contract by 
reference,  states  that  she  is  guaranteed  an  assignment  in  xxxxxx  Class  “A”  School.  
Annex L does not mention a bonus. 
 
 
Also  on  April  27,  199x,  however,  the  applicant  and  her  recruiter  signed  an 
Administrative Remarks (page 7) stating that the applicant was eligible for a Level II 
Selective Reserve Enlistment Bonus and that her bonus would be “computed based on 
72 months of obligated service.”  The page 7 also requires the applicant to acknowledge 
that she has read and understood the contents of COMDTINST 7220.1, the Comman-
dant’s Instruction for Reserve bonuses. 
 

 

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 her a choice of three options: 
 

•  Correct  her  enlistment  contract  to  show  that  she  entered  a  rating  that 
qualifies her for a bonus under ALDIST 224/98 (she would also have to 
attend “A” School in the new rating). 
 

•  Void her enlistment contract and award her an honorable discharge. 

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

 

(the status quo). 

 

 

The  Chief  Counsel  admitted  that  the  applicant’s  recruiter  may  have  promised 
her a bonus upon enlistment but alleged that the Coast Guard has no legal authority to 
pay her the promised bonus because ALDIST 224/98 did not authorize Level II bonuses 
for members in the xxxx or xxxx ratings.  He stated that the error may have been made 
because of some apparent confusion over what rating the applicant wanted at the time 
of her enlistment. 
 

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.  He further stated that regulations provide that 
“in  no  event  can  the  bonus  amount  be  established  through  private  negotiation  or 
contract  between  the  member  and  his/her  recruiter.”    GAO  Military  Personnel  Law 
Manual, Chapter 2.IV.C.  

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 her 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  224/98,  issued  on  September  24,  1998,  announced  the  continuation  of 
bonuses for certain Reserve members who enlisted, reenlisted, or extended their enlist-
ments.  For members enlisting for the first time, no Level II bonus was authorized for 
members in the xxx or xxx ratings.  Level I bonuses were authorized for members in the 
xxx rating if they were assigned to a xxxxxx unit. 

 
 
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. 

 

2. 

Under COMDTINST 7220.1A and ALDIST 224/98, members who enlisted 
in the xxxx or xx ratings were not eligible for Level II bonuses, and members in the xxx 
rating were only eligible for a bonus if they were assigned to a xxxx unit.  The applicant, 
apparently,  was  not  assigned  to  a  xxxxx  unit.    Therefore,  although  her  recruiter 
promised her a bonus, she was not legally eligible for one. 

 

The Coast Guard erred when it told the applicant she would be eligible for 

a Level II enlistment bonus if she enlisted in the xx or xx ratings.   

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  or 
agents 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  her  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. 

3. 

 
4. 

 
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 XXXXXXXXX, USCGR, is 
hereby  granted.    Her  records  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  she  was  eligible  for  the 
Level II enlistment bonus she was promised when she enlisted on April 27, 199x.  The 
Coast Guard shall pay the applicant the amount she is due as a result of this correction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

        

 

 
 
Thomas A. Phemister