DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2004-021 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ULMER, Chair: 
 
 
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 November 3, 2003, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  27,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled 
to an enlistment bonus. He alleged that when he enlisted in the Reserve, his recruiter 
was  not  aware  that  enlistment  bonuses  were  available  for  affiliating  with  certain 
ratings.  He further alleged that he only recently discovered that he was entitled to an 
enlistment bonus.    
 
 
recruiter.  The recruiter stated the following: 
 

In  support  of  his  contention,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  from  his 

At the time of [the applicant's] enlistment, I was unfortunately unaware of 
the bonus offered for the Reserve MST billets.  During the recent Reserve 
Recruiting  Conference       . . . held in Florida, I learned of the bonus and 
[the  applicant]  had  already  shipped  to  boot  camp.    Therefore,  I  did  not 
request one when making his reservation for A-School and basic training. 

[The  applicant]  excelled  during  basic  training  being  selected  as  Honor 
Graduate of his company.  This outstanding young man finished a B.S. in 

 

Biology before enlisting with the Coast Guard and his goal is to become a 
doctor.      He  is  making  a  concerted  effort  to  work  diligently  towards 
reaching his aspirations while serving as a member of this service. 
 
[The applicant's] performance speaks for itself on how committed he is to 
serve and go beyond the call of duty.  I am certain our investment of time, 
training  and  money  in  this  young  man  is  not  in  vain.    If  there  is  an 
opportunity to help [the applicant] in reaching his goal through offering 
the bonus available for MST Reserve, I respectfully request for this bonus 
to be granted.   
 
The applicant submitted a document entitled "SELRES ENLISTMENT BONUSES 

 
FOR FY03", which shows an enlistment bonus for the MST rating.1  
  

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve (not on full-time active duty) 
for  six  years  on  July  14,  2003.  On  the  enlistment  contract,  he  initialed  an 
acknowledgment  that  no  promises  or  guarantees  other  than  those  shown  on  the 
contract had been made to him.  The contract does not mention an enlistment bonus. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  March  15,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the 
applicant’s request.   
 
TJAG  asserted  that  the  applicant's  recruiter  never  promised  him  an  enlistment 
 
bonus and therefore a bonus was not part of an inducement to enlist.  He stated that 
recruiters use enlistment bonuses when they are necessary to close the deal.  The offer 
of a bonus was not necessary in the applicant's case.  TJAG argued that the applicant 
has  produced  no  evidence  to  support  his  claim  that  he  was  entitled  to  a  bonus.    He 
further stated as follows: 
 

The  Board  may  disagree  with  the  Coast  Guard's  recruiting  practice  of 
offering bonuses selectively, but it is not free to substitute its judgment for 
the  Coast  Guard's  in  this  matter.    Applicant  produced  no  evidence  in 
support  of  his  claim  that  he  was  "entitled"  to  an  enlistment  bonus.    The 
fact that he might have succeeded in striking a better bargain during his 
enlistment than he did is not grounds for rewriting the contract he entered 
into freely and willingly at the time.  Applicant received the benefit of the 
bargain he struck; he has been accepted into the Coast Guard at the pay 

                                                 
1   The Board has been unable to locate an ALDIST/ALCOAST that lists the ratings for enlistment bonuses 
during the time the applicant enlisted in the Reserve.   

grade  of  E-3  and  is  receiving  pay  and  allowances  for  the  same.    He  is 
"entitled" to no more.   

TJAG attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case prepared by 

the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated the following: 
 

According to input received from the Coast Guard Recruiting Command 
[CGRC],  an  enlistment  incentive  bonus  to  attend  Marine  Science 
Technician  "A"  School  was  offered  to  prospective  enlistees  on  a case-by-
case  basis  during  the  time  the  Applicant  enlisted.    At  the  time  of  the 
applicant's enlistment, recruiters were authorized to offer this incentive at 
their  discretion,  depending  on  their  determination that an incentive was 
necessary to successfully recruit an individual2. …   
 
Enlistment  bonuses  are  not  offered  to  everyone  and  are  not  always 
available.  Recruiters use the bonuses as a recruiting tool, but the CGRC 
"reservations"  office  ultimately  authorizes  bonuses  for  enlistees.  If  the 
recruiter feels that a bonus is not needed to enlist an applicant, the bonus 
will not be offered.   
 
Based  on  the  evidence    .  .  .  [i]t  is  clear  that  the  [applicant]  was  neither 
promised  nor  expected  any  kind  of  enlistment  bonus.    The  recruiter 
acknowledges  that  he  was  unaware  of  the  bonus  and  did  not  have  [the 
applicant]  complete  the  paperwork  to  make  a  bonus  possible.    The 
recruiter  had  no  obligation  to  offer  a  bonus  to  the  Applicant  and  no 
blanket entitlement existed for students attending MST "A" school.  Even 
with  the  knowledge  that  he  would  not  receive  a  bonus,  the  applicant 
volunteered  to  attend  MST  "A"  school.    Because  many  of  the applicant's 
schoolmates  did  receive  a  bonus  (presumably  because  their  recruiters 
determined it was necessary to offer one as an enlistment incentive), [the 
applicant] erroneously became convinced that he was entitled to one. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On March 17, 2004 and March 31, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of 
 
the Coast Guard's views and invited him to respond.   Each letter was returned to the 
BCMR as "not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward."  Therefore, the Board has 
not received a reply from the applicant to the views of the Coast Guard.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATION 

 

Selected Reserve Enlisted Bonus Programs (COMDTINST 7220.1A) 
                                                 
2   The Executive Officer of the Recruiting Command, in an earlier case, confirmed the recruiting policy in 
this regard. 

 
 
Paragraph  1  of  Enclosure  (2)  states  that  the  Selected  Reserve  Enlistment Bonus 
Program  provides  a  bonus  to  eligible  personnel  who  enlist  in  the  SELRES  (selected 
reserve)  in  ratings,  billets,  or  units  designated  most  critical  (Level 1) or critical (Level 
11).    The  criticality  of  ratings,  billets,  or  units  is  periodically  revised  by  ALDIST  to 
maintain currency.   
 

Paragraph  2  states  that  "[i]n  order  to  meet  the  eligibility  criteria  for  the 

enlistment bonus program the member: 

 
"a.  Must be a graduate of a secondary school. 
"b.  Must have never previously served in an armed force. 
"c.  Must enlist for a period of not less than six years in the SELRES. 
"d.  Must be assigned to a bonus-eligible permanent rating, billet, or unit listed        
       in the current ALDIST bonus message at the time of enlistment. 
"e.  Member must agree to serve in the rating, billet, or unit, for which the bonus  

 
                  was authorized . . ."  
 

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, applicable 
law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
2.  The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered 
 
an injustice because his recruiter's lack of knowledge about the availability of enlistment 
bonuses  denied  the  applicant  any  opportunity  to  obtain  a  bonus  for  enlisting  and 
affiliating  with  the  MST  rating.      TJAG  essentially  argues  that  the  recruiter's  lack  of 
knowledge  is  irrelevant  because  it  is not the Coast Guard's policy to offer a bonus to 
each potential enlistee and it is left to each individual recruiter to determine whether a 
bonus will be offered.  However, if the decision to offer a bonus to a potential enlistee is 
left to the discretion of the recruiters, who are enlisted petty officers in most cases, it is 
incumbent upon the Coast Guard or the COs of CGRCs to ensure that each recruiter is 
informed about the availability of enlistment bonuses.   
 

3.  The  applicant's  recruiter  stated  that  he  was  not  aware  that  bonuses  were 
available at the time the applicant enlisted and did not become aware of such bonuses 
until September 9, 2003, while attending a recruiting conference.    While the Board is 
unaware of any requirement for the Coast Guard to inform a potential enlistees about 
the availability of enlistment bonuses, it appears to the Board that the Coast Guard has 
a responsibility to ensure that all recruiters and their potential enlistees are operating on 

a  level  playing  field  by  providing  each  recruiter  with  the  necessary  training  and 
information about all available benefits.  
 
4.  The Coast Guard's apparent failure to ensure that all recruiters, including the 
 
applicant's,  received  or  obtained  information  on  the  availability  of  bonuses  for 
affiliating with certain ratings resulted in the applicant being denied a potential benefit.  
Those  enlistees  who  had  non-informed  recruiters,  such  as  the  applicant,  had  no 
opportunity  whatsoever  to  receive  enlistment  bonuses,  while  those  enlistees  with 
knowledgeable recruiters had the opportunity to receive bonuses.  
 

5.    TJAG  suggested  that  those  enlistees  who  actually  received  bonuses  were 
difficult  to  recruit  and  were  probably  offered  the  bonuses  to  "close  the  deal."    In 
contrast, he stated that it was not necessary to offer the applicant a bonus because the 
recruiter  was  able  to  "close  the  deal"  without  having  to  do  so.    However,  the  Coast 
Guard offered no evidence to support this reasoning and none exists in the record.  It 
may well have been that the recruiters who offered bonuses to potential enlistees did so 
whether  or  not  the  enlistees  were  hesitant  about  enlisting.  The  fact  that the applicant 
still enlisted in the Reserve, in a critical rating, without the benefit of a bonus, should 
not  be  used  to  excuse  the  fact  that  his  recruiter's  lack  of  information  resulted  in  the 
applicant having no chance of receiving an enlistment bonus.  The applicant's recruiter 
could make no decision on the bonus issue because he was not aware that enlistment 
bonuses existed.  The Board is persuaded that this failure on the part of the Coast Guard 
and/or the recruiter resulted in an injustice to this applicant.   

 
 
 

 
6. The Board finds that if the recruiter had been aware of the enlistment bonus, 
he would have offered the bonus to the applicant. In this regard, the Board notes the 
recruiter's  statement:    "During  the  recent  Reserve  Recruiting  Conference    .  .  .  held  in 
Florida, I learned of the bonus and [the applicant] had already shipped to boot camp.  
Therefore, I did not request one when making [the applicant's] reservation for A-school 
and basic training."  While the Board prefers more explicit language that the recruiter 
would have offered the bonus to the applicant, the recruiter's statement is still sufficient 
to persuade the Board that he would done so had he known about the bonus.    

 
7.    The  Coast  Guard  is  encouraged  to  develop  clear  standards  for  offering 
enlistment  bonuses.    A  case  should  not  be  determined  based  upon  the  knowledge, 
training, and experience of an individual recruiter. 

   
 8.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to relief.  The Board will direct that his 
record be corrected to show that when he enlisted in the Reserve on July 14, 2003, and 
elected to join the MST rating, he was entitled to the enlistment bonus, if any, in effect at 
that time for that rating. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]  

 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCGR, for the correction of his military 
record is granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that when he enlisted in the 
Reserve  on  July  14,  2003,  and  elected  to  join  the  MST  rating,  he  was  entitled  to  the 
enlistment bonus, if any, in effect at that time for that rating.  The Coast Guard shall pay 
the applicant the amount due to him as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Eric J. Young 

 
 

 

 
  Darren S. Wall