DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2004-082 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
XXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Hale, D. 
 
 
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 March 18, 2003, 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  December  16,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  food  service  specialist  second  class  (FS2),  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his record to show that he is entitled to enlistment bonuses totaling  $10,000 for 
signing a three-year enlistment contract on June 26, 2002.  
 
The applicant alleged that when he enlisted in the Coast Guard, he was promised 
 
two  separate  enlistment  bonuses  totaling  $10,000.    He  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard 
recruiter  promised  him  the  bonuses  and  that  he  (applicant)  signed  an  enlistment 
contract indicating that he would receive the bonuses.  The applicant alleged, however, 
that  he  was  never  put  on  any  of  the  “bonus  lists“  and  has  unjustly  been  denied  the 
bonuses he was promised. 
 

The applicant also alleged that his recruiter promised him two separate bonuses 
of $8,000 for the food service rating under the direct shipper program, and $2,000 for his 
prior  military  service.    He  further  alleged  that  he  signed  an  enlistment  contract 
containing the bonus provisions.     
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 

 
On June 26, 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard as a FS3.  He signed 
an  enlistment  contract  (DD  Form  4/1)  indicating  in  block  B  that  he  was  enlisting  for 
three  years.    Section  C  of  the  contract  requires  the  member  to  sign  the  following 
statement:  “The  agreements  in  this  section  and  attached  annex(es)  are  all  promises 
made to me by the Government.   ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS 
NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED” (emphasis in original).   The applicant 
signed  his  initials  in  the  space  immediately  following  the  statement.    The  record  is 
devoid of any documents that indicate the applicant was promised an enlistment bonus.  
 

On February 26, 2004, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) wrote a letter to 
the Chair of the Board for Correction of Military Records, asking that the applicant be 
paid  the  bonuses  he  was  allegedly  promised.    The  CO  asked  the  Board  to  correct  the 
applicant’s record for the following reasons: 
 

Due  to  an  apparent  oversight  by  his  recruiter and through no direct fault of the 
member, [the applicant] did not receive his prior service initial enlistment bonus 
for  $2,000.    In  addition,  [the  applicant]  was  recruited  into  the  “direct  shipper” 
program as an FS3 with the understanding that he was entitled to $8,000 once he 
enlisted in the Coast Guard, totaling $10,000 in bonuses 
 
[The applicant] enlisted in good faith under the instructions that he received from 
his recruiter at that time.  However, the recruiter never placed [the applicant] on 
the prior service bonus list, nor the FS “direct shipper” bonus list.  [The applicant] 
has yet to receive either bonus. 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  May  27,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    TJAG  stated  that  the 
applicant failed to prove that his recruiter promised him any enlistment bonuses, and 
that the applicant bears the burden of proving error pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.24.  He 
also stated that the record indicates that the bonuses requested by the applicant were 
not available to any service member at the time he enlisted.  Moreover, he stated that 
even if bonuses were available, there is no evidence the applicant would be entitled to 
them, because the Coast Guard routinely offers bonuses to “close the deal”, but no such 
offers were made in this case.   

 
TJAG  also  argued  that  absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  government 
officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 
804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  

 
TJAG attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case prepared by 
the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC noted that the applicant was not 
eligible  for  any  enlistment  bonuses  when  he  enlisted  on  June  26,  2002.    Specifically, 

CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  enlisted  as  an  FS3  based  on  his  prior  military 
service, and it found no evidence that the applicant was offered an enlistment bonus.  
Finally, CGPC stated that bonuses for the applicant’s rating were not being offered at 
the time of the applicant’s enlistment. 

 
On  April  30,  2004,  the  Coast  Guard  Recruiting  Command  (CGRC)  issued  a 
memorandum on the case to CGPC asserting that the applicant was not entitled to any 
enlistment bonus.  In its comments, the CGRC noted that for fiscal year 2002, there were 
50  bonuses  available  for  the  food  service  rate,  and  their  records  indicate  that  the  last 
bonus for that rate was given on April 2, 2002.  CGRC pointed out that the applicant’s 
reservation request, which would also be used to request a bonus, assuming one was 
available, was not made until June 7, 2003.  CGRC also noted that the applicant enlisted 
in the Coast Guard at a higher pay-grade because of his prior military service, and that 
the recruiter made no request for any bonuses simply because there were none available 
at that time.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  June  1,  2004,  the  Chair  sent  a  copy  of  TJAG’s  advisory  opinion  to  the 
applicant and invited him to respond.  No response was received.  However, on June 2, 
2004, the Chair did receive a copy of a letter drafted by the applicant on May 25, 2004, in 
which he elaborated on his allegations. 
 
 
In the letter, the applicant alleged that the Coast Guard recruiter told him that if 
he enlisted in the Coast Guard, he would receive two separate bonuses totaling $10,000.  
The applicant alleged that the recruiter told him he would receive an $8,000 bonus for 
going into the food service rating under the “direct shipper” program and an additional 
bonus of $2,000 because of his prior military service.   The applicant also alleged that he 
signed an enlistment contract containing the bonus of $10,000, and alleged that a copy 
of that enlistment contract has never been found.  

 

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.” 
 
 
Article  3.A.1.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  Enlistment 
Bonus  (EB)  program  is  an  incentive  to  attract  qualified  personnel  to  critical  skills  or 
ratings to help meet the Coast Guard’s recruiting goals.  This program applies to new 
enlistments. 
 

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: 
 

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

1552.  The application was timely.  

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

The applicant has provided no evidence other than his bare assertion that 
his  recruiter  promised  him  two  enlistment  bonuses,  and  his  bare  assertion  without 
corroborating  evidence  is  insufficient  to  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  in 
accordance  with  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24.    The  only  piece  of  evidence  submitted  by  the 
applicant in support of his claim is a letter from his current CO dated February 26, 2004, 
stating the applicant was promised and is entitled to the enlistment bonuses.  However, 
this letter does not prove that the applicant was promised the bonuses by his recruiter 
on June 26, 2002. 

While the Board has previously granted relief in cases where the applicant 
did  not  receive  a  promised  enlistment  bonus,  those  cases  can  easily  be  distinguished 
from  the  instant  case.    In  those  cases,  the  applicants  provided  documentation,  in  the 
form  of  their  enlistment  contracts  and  page  7s,  that  they  were  indeed  promised  an 
enlistment  bonus.    Here,  the  applicant  has  provided  no  such  evidence.    In  fact,  the 
applicant’s  enlistment  contract  contains  a  statement  that  the  applicant initialed which 
stated  that  anything  else  he  may  have  been  promised  is  not  valid  and  would  not  be 
honored.   
 

4. 

The  applicant  has  not  provided the Board with any persuasive evidence 
that  he  is  entitled  to  relief.    The  Board  agrees  with  TJAG  that  the  applicant  must 
overcome  the  rebuttable  presumption  that,  in  this  case,  the  "administrators  of  the 
military, like other public officers, discharge[d] their duties correctly, lawfully, and in 
good faith."  Sanders, 594 F.2d at 813.  The applicant has not persuaded the Board that 
the Coast Guard failed to do otherwise.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be 
denied.  
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.