DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1998-047 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  It was commenced upon the BCMR’s 
receipt of the applicant’s application on May 27, 199x.  On December 31, 199x, the 
Chairman  denied  the application  for  lack  of  substantial  proof.   On  January  26, 
1998, the Chairman redocketed the application following a further submission by 
the applicant. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  11,  1999,  is  signed  by  the three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxx  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his record by changing the narrative reason for discharge in block 28 of 
his DD Form 214 from “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” to “Unsuitability.”  The 
applicant  also  asked  that  his  reenlistment  code  be  changed  from  an  RE-4  (not 
eligible  for  reenlistment)  to  one  that  would  allow  him  to  enlist  in  a  different 
military service. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  as  a  result  of  two  alcohol 
incidents.    The  first  incident  involved  driving  under  the  influence  (DUI)  in 
xxxxxxx 199x.  He alleged that he was then referred to Level I alcohol treatment 
but  had  to  wait  seven  months  (until  after  the  second  incident)  before  he  was 
allowed to attend by his command.  The second incident was an alcohol-related 

assault he committed on xxxxxx, xxxxx, 199x.  Thereafter, although he agreed to 
and was ordered to undergo Level II treatment, none was made available.  He 
alleged that he was also recommended for chemical dependency screening but 
was never sent. 
 
 
The applicant argued that his late Level I treatment and nonexistent Level 
II treatment were not his fault.  He alleged that after both incidents he had signed 
a form indicating his willingness to undergo treatment. In addition, he “repeat-
edly requested to complete the Level I treatment for months after [his] first inci-
dent in xxxxx 199x, and was ignored by [his] command due to underway sched-
ules, dockside availability, and manpower shortages.”  “The Board should know 
that an E-3 in any service does not take it upon [him]self to decide to go [on tem-
porary active duty] somewhere, whether it’s for Level II treatment, or anything 
else.  To do so would be to go AWOL.”  He alleged that he “would have gladly 
gone [to treatment], as [he] hated nearly every day aboard CGC xxxxx, and hated 
[him]self for getting a DUI in xxx 199x and preventing [him]self from going to 
class A school.” 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  on  February  28,  199x,  he  was  notified  by  his 
group  commander  that  he  was  to  be  administratively  discharged  by  reason  of 
unsuitability (see below). He also alleged that his DD Form 214 worksheet had 
stated  “Unsuitability”  in  block  28  (see  below).    He  signed  the  worksheet  and 
returned  it  to  the  group  commander.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not 
respond to the group commander’s letter recommending discharge for “Unsuit-
ability due to alcohol abuse” because the Personnel Manual “clearly states that a 
member may be discharged after two alcohol incidents.” 
 

When he received the final copy of his DD Form 214, however, the narra-
tive  reason  in  block  28  had  been  changed  to  “Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure.”  
The applicant stated that he had not agreed “to be labeled an alcoholic rehabili-
tation failure, and most definitely would have protested such an action had [he] 
known that was to be the narrative cited on [his] DD-214.” 
 

Because  he  was  discharged  before  he  could  undergo  Level  II  treatment, 
the  applicant  argued,  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  on  his  DD  Form  214, 
“Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” is untrue and unfair.  In fact, because he was not 
diagnosed as an alcoholic, he was never even recommended for a rehabilitation 
program although he was recommended for dependency evaluation.  

 
The applicant further alleged that, since completing the Level I treatment 
program just prior to his discharge, he has “had no problems whatsoever due to 
alcohol use.”  He “feel[s] very strongly that had [he] been afforded an opportu-

nity to complete the recommended training necessitated by [the] first incident, in 
a timely manner, [he] could have avoided the second incident altogether.” 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  has  undergone  considerable  hardship 
 
because of the false narrative reason for separation stated on his DD Form 214.  
He alleged that he had been turned down for unemployment compensation after 
his discharge because of his DD Form 214.  He also alleged that a job offer had 
been rescinded after the prospective employer had reviewed his DD Form 214. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 12, 1999, the Chief Counsel submitted an advisory opinion in 

 
Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel 
 
 
which he recommended that the Board grant partial relief. 
  
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Personnel Manual requires command-
ing  officers  to  process  members  for  separation  after  a  second  alcohol  incident.  
Articles 12.B.16.b.(5) and 20.B.2.h.2. COMDTINST M1000.2A.  He further stated 
that the applicant was afforded all due process he was owed prior to being sepa-
rated. 
 
The Chief Counsel explained that “the character and nature of the separa-
 
tion [were] made by the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command.”  Re-
garding  the  narrative  reason  assigned  to  the  applicant,  the  Chief  Counsel 
explained as follows: 
 

As there exists only a finite number of separation codes, a SPD code may 
be  assigned  which  does  not  explain  an  individual  member’s  discharge 
situation exactly. . . .  The only SPD codes available where the discharge is 
related to the misuse of alcohol and disciplinary action or sufficient mis-
conduct did not occur to warrant an OTH discharge are “PD” codes.  The 
narrative reason for all “PD” codes is “alcohol rehabilitation failure.”  In 
some cases, the narrative reason is exactly what transpired.  However, in 
other  cases,  as  in  the  Applicant’s  case,  it  is  a  general  statement,  which 
serves all situations in which a member failed to adhere to Coast Guard 
policy  with  regards  to  the  use  of  alcohol.    There  is  no  standard  code, 
which would accurately document the reason for Applicant’s separation.  
In particular, the code JPA and its corresponding narrative reason, “Per-
sonal  Alcohol  Abuse,”  would  be  inaccurate  because  it  is  used  for  dis-
charge  as  a  result  of  self-referral  for  alcohol  abuse  or  an  alcohol  abuse 
testing procedure which is not the situation in the instant case.  However, 
if the Board should so choose, the assignment of a JNC SPD code would 
not  be  objectionable.    JNC  is  assigned  when  a  member  is  involuntarily 
discharged  by  established  directive  when  the  member  performs  acts  of 
unacceptable conduct not otherwise listed.  The narrative reason listed on 
the member’s DD-214 would be “Unacceptable Conduct” along with an 
RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  pointed  out  that  the  applicant  could  have  received  a 
less  favorable  characterization  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.16.  and  12.B.18.  of  the 
Personnel Manual.  However, the Chief Counsel stated, “’Alcohol Rehabilitation 
Failure’  [is]  the  standard  code  that  most  closely  describes  [the  applicant’s]  cir-

cumstances (under the theory that the member failed to rehabilitate himself after 
notice regarding the effects of a first alcohol incident).”1 
  
Regarding  the  timing  of  the  applicant’s  treatment,  the  Chief  Counsel 
 
alleged that “[t]he Coast Guard had no duty to provide alcohol treatment to the 
Applicant prior to his discharge.”  “Article 20.B.3.b.2. [of the Personnel Manual] 
specifically  states  that  the  scheduled  separation  or  release  to  inactive  duty  for 
any reason shall not be delayed for the sole purpose of completing their alcohol 
treatment nor would completion of [Level II] treatment affect the decision lead-
ing to or the nature of the Applicant’s discharge. . . .  Therefore, there was no 
error  or  injustice  on  the  part  of  the  Coast  Guard  by  discharging  the  applicant 
prior to his completion of alcohol rehabilitation treatment.” 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  he 
 
received  from  the  Commander  of  the  Personnel  Command  in  September  1998 
regarding the applicant’s case (see below). 
 
Memorandum of the Commander of the Military Personnel Command 
 
 
The  Commander  of  the  Military  Personnel  Command  recommended  to 
the Chief Counsel that no relief should be granted.  He stated that the applicant’s 
command  had  adhered  to  the  Personnel  Manual’s  provisions  for  the  Alcohol 
Abuse Program in Article 20.B. “in relation to the [applicant’s] discharge and all 
events  leading  up  to  it.”    He  explained  that  only  the  PD  separation  codes  are 
available  when  a  member  misuses  alcohol  and  misconduct  is  not  an  issue.  
“Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure,” he stated, is sometimes “a blanket statement to 
cover all situations in which a member  failed to adhere to Coast Guard policy 
with regards to the use of alcohol.  [The Department of Defense] is currently in 
the process of creating an SPD code specifically for situations similar to this one 
for Coast Guard use in the future.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 13, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant copies of the advi-
 
sory opinion and the memorandum from the Personnel Command.  On January 
26, 1999, the applicant responded.  He stated that he would consider the Chief 
Counsel’s recommended change to a JNC code to “constitute full relief” as long 
                                                 
1  The Chief Counsel also explained at length why the applicant had been denied unemployment 
benefits.  Pursuant to xxxx State Law and 5 U.S.C. § 8521, the Chief Counsel stated, the state will 
only pay unemployment benefits to members separated before completing their first term if they 
are separated under an early release program or because of medical disqualification, pregnancy, 
parenthood,  disability,  hardship,  personality  disorder,  or  inaptitude.    Therefore,  the  changes 
requested by the applicant would not make him eligible for unemployment benefits. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  February  27,  199x,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  after 
serving in the Navy for almost 10 years.  He signed a form indicating that his 
recruiter had fully explained to him the Coast Guard’s drug and alcohol policy. 
 

as it would not change the character of service description, which is now “honor-
able.”  
  

On xxxx, 199x, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence 
of alcohol.  This was his first alcohol incident.  He was not referred for screening 
until  November  4,  199x.    On  that  day,  a  counselor  at  the  xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
determined that the applicant was not alcohol dependent, nor an alcohol abuser.  
The  center  recommended  that  he  attend  an  Alcohol  IMPACT  Course  and  be 
placed in a Level I treatment program.  The report further stated that, “without 
the  recommended  program,  [the  applicant’s]  potential  for  further  abuse  is 
moderate.”    Instead,  the  applicant  was  sent  to  Navy  DWI/DUI  Remedial 
Training, which he completed on November xx, 199x. 
 
 
On  December  10,  199x,  the  applicant’s  command  documented  his  first 
alcohol incident by entering a page 7 in his record.  The page 7 states that “[y]ou 
will  be  required  to  complete  a  one  week  alcohol  IMPACT  course  and  receive 
command level one counseling and support . . . .  Any further alcohol incidents 
may  result  in  your  separation  from  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard.”    On  December  30, 
199x, the applicant acknowledged this entry. 
 
 
On  January  x,  199x,  the  applicant  was  arrested  for  assault  committed 
while under the influence of alcohol.  On January xx, 199x, the applicant’s com-
mand documented this second alcohol incident in his record.  The page 7, which 
the applicant signed, advised him that he was being processed for separation and 
would  be  eligible  for  treatment  through  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs 
(DVA). 
 

On February 12, 199x, the applicant’s command sent him to the xxxxx for 
another  screening.    On  February  21,  199x,  the  center  reported  that  he  was  an 
alcohol abuser but not alcohol dependent.  It noted that, although it had previ-
ously recommended that he be sent to an alcohol IMPACT course, this had not 
yet  happened.  It  recommended  that  he  be  further  evaluated  for  chemical 
dependency and placed in a Level II treatment program.  The report stated that 
the applicant “is amenable to the above recommendations, and with the recom-
mended program he appears to have fair potential for future productive service.  
However, without the recommended program, his potential for further abuse is 
moderate.” 

 
 
On xxxxxxxxx, 199x, the applicant’s group commander informed him that 
he  was  being  recommended  for  administrative  discharge  “by  reason  of 
unsuitability due to alcohol abuse.”  The DD Form 214 Worksheet provided to 
the applicant and signed by him showed a separation code of JPD, a reenlistment 
code of RE-4, and a narrative reason for separation of “Unsuitability.”  On xxxxx, 
199x,  the  applicant  submitted  his  response,  in  which  he  waived  his  right  to 
submit a statement on his behalf regarding his discharge for unsuitability due to 
alcohol  abuse.    He  also  wrote  a  note  stating  that  he  was  “willing  to  undergo 
Level II treatment as recommended by the xxxxxxx if such treatment is available 
prior to separation date.”   

 
On  xxxxx,  199x,  the  applicant’s  group  commander  recommended  to  the 
Personnel  Command  that  the  applicant  be  administratively  discharged  “for 
unsuitability due to alcohol abuse.”  He noted that the applicant did not object 
and  had  “provided  a  statement  in  which  he  states  that  he  will  accept  Level  II 
Treatment only if it does not exceed his separation date.”  On the same day, the 
xxxxx  reported  that  the  applicant  had  undergone  the  alcohol  IMPACT  course 
and “appeared to gain an understanding of alcohol’s potential health risks and 
the need for responsible use.” 
 
  
On  xxxxx,  199x,  the  Personnel  Command  ordered  that  the  applicant  be 
discharged with a JPD separation code and appropriate narrative reason.  It also 
ordered  that  he  be  provided  Level  II  treatment  prior  to  separation  unless  he 
waived  it  in  writing.    However,  the  order  received  by  the  group  commander 
stated merely that the applicant should be provided with Level II treatment prior 
to separation; the waiver provision was deleted.  The group commander was also 
told  to  advise the  Personnel  Command  if  the  applicant  was  not  discharged  by 
xxxxxx, 199x. 
 

On xxxxxx, 199x, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast 
Guard  with  a  JPD  separation  code,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and  “Alcohol 
Rehabilitation Failure” as a narrative reason for separation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 20 of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) contains the 
regulations  regarding  alcohol  abuse  by  Coast  Guard  members.    Under  Article 
20.B.1., entitled “Responsibility,” a member’s commanding officer is responsible 
for initiating any administrative action necessitated by an alcohol incident pur-
suant to Article 20.B.2. 
 

 
According to Article 20.B.2.e., “[a]ny member who has been involved in 
alcohol incidents or otherwise shown signs of alcohol abuse shall be screened in 
accordance with the Alcohol Abuse Treatment and Prevention Program . . . .  The 
results of this alcohol screening shall be recorded and acknowledged on a [Page 
7] . . . .” 
 
 
According to Article 20.B.2.h.2., “[e]nlisted members involved in a second 
alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation  in  accordance  with 
Article 12.B.16.” 
 
 
According  to  Article  20.B.3.b.,  “[c]ommanding  officers  shall  seek  appro-
priate  treatment  for  members  who  have  abused  alcohol  or  been  diagnosed  as 
alcohol dependent. . . . Members shall be treated for alcohol abuse or dependency 
as prescribed by competent medical authority.  However, if they are otherwise 
qualified,  their  scheduled  separation  or  release  to  inactive  duty  for  any reason 
shall not be delayed for the sole purpose of completing alcohol treatment.” 
 
 
According to Article 20.B.3.c., “[c]ommanding officers shall request alco-
hol rehabilitation treatment in accordance with the Alcohol Abuse Treatment and 
Prevention Program, COMDTINST M6330.1 (series).” 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook permits the use of 
the  following  codes,  narrative  reasons,  and  reenlistment  codes,  which  might 
apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

Narrative Reason  RE Code 

Explanation 

 

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 applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. 

SPD 
Code 
JPD 

Alcohol 
Rehabilitation 
Failure 

JNC 

Unacceptable 
Conduct 

RE-4 

RE-4 

Involuntary discharge . . . when a 
member failed through inability or refusal 
to participate in, cooperate in, or 
successfully complete a treatment 
program for alcohol rehabilitation. 
Involuntary discharge . . . when member 
performs acts of unacceptable conduct 
(i.e., moral and/or professional 
dereliction) not otherwise listed. 

 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  narrative  reason  for  separation 
shown on his DD Form 214 was false and had caused him to lose a job offer and 
unemployment  benefits  in  civilian  life.    He  alleged  that  the  narrative  reason 
shown, “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure,” was in error because the Coast Guard 
had never placed him in the recommended rehabilitation programs.  Instead, he 
was discharged in accordance with regulations after his second alcohol incident.  
The applicant did not contest his discharge, but he asked the Board to change the 
narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant partial relief 
by changing the applicant’s separation code from JPD to JNC and by changing 
the narrative reason for separation from “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” to “Un-
acceptable Conduct.”  The Chief Counsel explained that although the code and 
narrative  reason  shown  on  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214  did  not  perfectly 
describe  the  applicant’s  situation,  they  had  been  used  because  they  were  the 
closest available terms in the SPD Handbook.  The Chief Counsel stated that a 
new code and narrative reason are currently being developed for persons being 
discharged after two alcohol incidents but prior to any rehabilitation treatment.  
The Chief Counsel further stated, however, that the RE-4 reenlistment code was 
not in error and that the recommended change would not help the applicant get 
unemployment benefits.  Upon reviewing the Chief Counsel’s advisory opinion, 
the  applicant  stated  that  he  would  consider  the  recommended  change  “full 
relief” as long as the character of his service (“honorable”) would not change. 
 
 
The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  was  properly  discharged  sub-
sequent  to  his  second  alcohol  incident  in  accordance  with  Article  20.B.2.h.2.  of 
the  Personnel  Manual.    However,  because  the  applicant’s  command  delayed 
evaluation of the applicant and the treatment recommended by medical person-
nel  as  required  by  Article  20.B.3.,  the  applicant  did  not  undergo  rehabilitative 
treatment  prior  to  his  discharge.    The  applicant’s  discharge  prior  to  treatment 
was  nevertheless  proper  in  accordance  with  Article  20.B.3.b.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual and with his signed statement that he did not wish his discharge to be 
delayed until after treatment.   
 

In  light  of  these  circumstances,  the  Board  finds  that  the  narrative 
reason for separation currently shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is inaccu-
rate.    The  Coast  Guard  completes  DD  Form  214s  in  accordance  with  uniform 
rules used by all the armed services and does not tailor them to each member’s 
specific  situation.    Nevertheless,  the  Board  believes  that  under  these  circum-
stances, the use of an inaccurate narrative reason that may improperly mislead 
the applicant’s future employers is unjust. 
 

4. 

3. 

5. 

6. 

 
The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board change the appli-
cant’s SPD code and narrative reason to JNC and “Unacceptable Conduct.” The 
Board finds that the JNC code and “Unacceptable Conduct” provide a somewhat 
more accurate and fairer description of the circumstances surrounding the appli-
cant’s discharge than do the code and reason originally assigned.  The use of the 
JNC code does not necessitate a change in the character of the applicant’s service. 

The applicant also requested that his reenlistment code of RE-4 be 
changed to one that would allow him to enter a military service other than the 
Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  stated  that  the  RE-4  was  not  in  keeping  with  the 
“honorable”  character  of  his  service.    However,  RE-4  is  the  only  reenlistment 
code  that  can  be  assigned  to  members  discharged  with  either  a  JPD  or  a  JNC 
separation code.  In addition, the applicant has not presented any evidence that 
the RE-4 code was unjustly assigned to him.  Therefore, the Board finds that the 
Coast Guard did not err by assigning an RE-4 code to the applicant, and no relief 
is due in regard to this request. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  to  have  the  narrative  reason 
for separation on his  DD Form 214 changed should  be granted.  The narrative 
reason  should  be  changed  to  “Unacceptable  Conduct”  and  the  associated  SPD 
code should be changed to JNC.  The applicant’s reenlistment code should not be 
changed. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE] 

The application for correction of the military record of former XXXXXXX, 

The separation code in block 26 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shall be 

The narrative reason for separation in block 28 of his DD Form 214 shall 

ORDER 

 

 
 

No other changes shall be made. 

USCG, is hereby granted in part as follows: 
 
 
changed to “JNC.” 
 
 
be changed to “UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
David H. Kasminoff 

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter