The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES et al. v. LARIONOFF et al., 1976, revolved around the issue of whether Congress had authorized the Secretary of Defense to terminate a program that provided reenlistment bonuses to enlisted members of the Navy who served in certain critical specialties without providing them with any notice or hearing. The respondents were three sailors who had signed up for this bonus program but were denied their benefits when they reenlisted because the specialty was no longer deemed 'critical'. They sued and won at both district court and appellate levels on grounds that termination violated their rights under due process clause. However, upon reaching Supreme Court, it was held by unanimous decision (Justice Powell did not participate) that neither statute nor regulation created an entitlement to these bonuses enforceable against U.S government until conditions precedent have been fulfilled i.e., completion of full term agreed upon during enlistment. Therefore, there wasn't any violation as claimed by respondents since they hadn't completed terms yet when changes occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for United States et al. v. Larionoff et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the statute in question, arguing that it did not grant enlisted personnel an absolute right to reenlistment bonuses once they had completed their required service period and signed up for another term. He contended that Congress intended these bonuses as incentives for reenlistment rather than entitlements, and therefore could be subject to conditions set by military authorities such as completion of training programs or fulfillment of certain duties during the new enlistment period. Furthermore, he believed that allowing individuals who failed to meet these conditions to still receive their bonuses would undermine this incentive system and potentially harm military readiness by encouraging less qualified or committed personnel to reenlist solely for financial gain.