DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-086 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was dock-
eted on March 26, 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  January  6,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxx who was discharged from the Coast Guard on xxxx, 
199x, asked the Board to correct her record by changing the narrative reason for 
discharge in block 28 of her DD Form 214 from “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” 
to something else, which she did not specify.  She also asked the Board to change 
her reenlistment code, which is RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant made no allegations on her own behalf but submitted two 
reports from the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation xxxxxxxxx.  The first report, a 
“Commanding Officer’s Summary,” indicates that the applicant was in treatment 
at the center from xxx, 199x, to xxxxx, 199x.  The report states that she had com-
pleted  six  weeks  of  the  recommended  comprehensive  full-day  treatment  pro-
gram, which included screening, individual and group therapy, indoctrination in 
a self-help support group, fitness training, family counseling, and nutritional and 
stress management education. 

 
 
The  report  stated  that  “she  has  made  maximum  therapeutic  progress  in 
developing a lifestyle change that will address the referral behavior of depend-
ency with more functional sober living.  The potential for a future relapse to sub-
stance dependency is always high; therefore, it is essential that the recommended 
aftercare regimen be strictly followed.”  The report recommended that the appli-
cant attend weekly individual aftercare meetings and six Alcoholics Anonymous 
meetings per week.  She was prescribed the medication Antabuse. 
 
 
The second report summarized the care received by the applicant while in 
treatment at the center.  It states that while in treatment, she admitted craving 
alcohol but was compliant in and enthusiastic about her treatment program. 
 

   

On November 9, 1999, the Chief Counsel submitted an advisory opinion 

 
 
in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the Coast Guard followed established pol-
icy and procedure in discharging her by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure 
following  her  second  documented  “alcohol  incident”  in  xxxx  199x.    He  stated 
that she “was afforded all due process” while being discharged. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel explained that the Coast Guard must use the separa-
 
tion codes and narrative reasons for separation established by the Department of 
Defense.    Regarding  the  narrative  reason  assigned  to  the  applicant,  the  Chief 
Counsel explained as follows: 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

As there exists only a finite number of separation codes, a SPD code may 
be assigned which does not exactly explain an individual member’s dis-
charge situation. . . .  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, it is a general statement that serves a multitude of situations 
in which a member failed to adhere to Coast Guard policy with regards to 
the use of alcohol.   

 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that, although the applicant completed an alco-
hol rehabilitation program, the rehabilitation failure referred to in block 28 of her 
DD Form 214 is her failure to remain sober after her first alcohol incident.  It was 
this  failure,  proven  by  the  occurrence  of  the  second  alcohol  incident,  which 
caused  her  to  be  discharged  by  reason  of  “alcohol  rehabilitation  failure,” 

although she did complete a treatment course prior to her discharge.  Therefore, 
the Chief Counsel alleged, the assignment of “alcohol rehabilitation failure” as 
the  applicant’s  narrative  reason  for  separation  “is  reasonable  as  applied  to  the 
facts in this case.” 
 
 
Finally,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  “[b]ecause  the  statutes  and  imple-
menting guidance related to [separation] codes do not create individual entitle-
ments  or  mandate  procedures,  Applicant  has  no  basis  for  relief  by  the  BCMR.  
Even if the Board found error in this case contrary to the Coast Guard’s position, 
violations of agency procedural regulations do not create private rights not oth-
erwise provided by statute or the Constitution.” 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 22, 1999, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief 
Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  her  to  respond  within  15  days.    The 
applicant did not respond.   
  

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On xxxxxx, 199x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four years.  She signed a statement indicating that Coast Guard policy concern-
ing alcohol abuse had been explained to her. 
 
 
On xxxx, 199x, the applicant received an “unsatisfactory” conduct mark as 
non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  pursuant  to  a  captain’s  mast,  which  found  that 
she had consumed alcohol while under age 21, assaulted the Officer of the Day 
while intoxicated, and abused the government email system.  She was assigned 
20 days of restriction, 20 days of extra duties, and she was fined $300. 
 
As a result of her first alcohol incident, the applicant underwent alcohol 
 
dependency screening and was ordered to attend individual counseling sessions, 
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and educational classes.  The applicant appar-
ently  began  this  treatment  and  soon  sought  an  increased  level  of  treatment.  
However,  on  xxxxx,  199x,  eight  days  before  she  was  scheduled  to  go  to  the 
xxxxxxx  for  in-patient  rehabilitative  treatment,  the  applicant  was  discovered 
drunk and disorderly by the Officer of the Day, who found her drinking alcohol.  
On xxxxxx, 199x, she began treatment at the xxxxxxxxx. 
 
 
On  xxxxxxx,  199x,  the  applicant  was  informed  that  she  was  being 
recommended  for  discharge  due  to  unsuitability,  pursuant  to  Article  20  of  the 
Personnel Manual, because of her second documented alcohol incident.  She was 
informed  that  she  could  submit  a  statement  on  her  own  behalf.    On  xxxxxxx, 

199x, the applicant submitted a formal objection to her pending discharge.  She 
stated that after her first alcohol incident she was screened and told that she had 
a  “high  probability  of  alcohol  dependency.”    This  confused  her  because  she 
thought she was a “normal” drinker.  After a second screening, she was ordered 
to seek treatment by seeing a counselor and attending one classroom session and 
one Alcoholics Anonymous meeting per week.  However, she continued to drink 
through this month-long program and realized her problem was worse than she 
thought.  Therefore, she stated, she approached a store keeper first class in her 
unit  and  “asked  her  if  [she]’d  get  in  trouble  for  asking  for  a  higher  level  [of] 
treatment.”  As a result, a medical officer called her in and told her they would 
prescribe Antabuse for her.  He also told her to see her counselor the next day, 
but she skipped it because she was later told it was cancelled since she was being 
sent  to  an  alcohol  treatment  center  in  xxxxxx.    Before  leaving  for  the  center, 
however, “a night of hard drinking turned into insane behavior which affected 
several of my co-workers, the duty station, and my supervisor.”  The applicant 
stated  that  she  believed  the  treatment  program  would  enable  her  to  tackle  her 
problems in a sober condition.  She asked for a “second chance” to remain in the 
Coast Guard. 
 
 
On  xxxxx,  199x,  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  ordered  the 
applicant’s command to discharge her no later than xxxxxx, 199x, by reason of 
unsuitability  under  Article  12.B.16  of  the  Personnel  Manual  with  a  separation 
code of “JPD” and the corresponding narrative reason for separation appearing 
in the Separation Designator Program (SPD) Handbook.  On xxxxxxx, 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  her 
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.    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 alco-
hol 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.”  Enlisted members must be discharged after a third incident. 
 
 
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 

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. 

JNC 

Unacceptable 
Conduct 

 

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.” 
 
 
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 

SPD 
Code 
JPD 

Alcohol 
Rehabilitation 
Failure 

BCMR DOCKET No. 1998-047 

 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1998-047, the applicant was discharged by reason of 
alcohol rehabilitation failure following two alcohol incidents.  The first, an arrest 
for  driving  under  the  influence,  occurred  in  July  199x,  but  his  screening  was 
delayed due to his cutter’s underway schedule until November 199x.  In Novem-
ber, he was finally screened and sent to Navy DWI/DUI Remedial Training.  In 
December,  his  command  formally  documented  his  first  alcohol  incident  and 
ordered  him  to  undergo  Level  I  rehabilitative  treatment.    However,  before  he 
began treatment, on January 1, 199x, he was arrested for assault committed while 
under the influence of alcohol.  Therefore, his command recommended his dis-
charge and referred him to Level II treatment.  He was discharged on April 16, 
199x, before completing the treatment program, with a JPD separation code and 
“alcohol rehabilitation failure” as his narrative reason for separation. 
 
 
In his advisory opinion for Docket No. 1998-047, the Chief Counsel of the 
Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the  Board  change  the  applicant’s  separation 
code to JNC and his narrative reason for separation to “unacceptable conduct.”  
The Chief Counsel’s analysis of the case and Coast Guard policy was very similar 
to his analysis in this case. However, he concluded that “if the Board should so 
choose, the assignment of a JNC SPD code would not be objectionable.” 
 
 
In its Final Decision in Docket No. 1998-047, the Board found that the nar-
rative  reason  for  separation  “alcohol  rehabilitation  failure”  was  inaccurate 

because the applicant’s treatment was delayed by the Coast Guard and thus was 
not completed by the time he was discharged.  Therefore, the Board granted the 
relief  recommended  by  the  Chief  Counsel  and  did  not  change  the  applicant’s 
reenlistment code, which was RE-4. 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

1. 

2. 

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. 
 

3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  narrative  reason  for  separation 
shown  on  her  DD  Form  214  was  in  error  because  she  successfully  completed 
alcohol rehabilitation treatment prior to her discharge.  She asked that her narra-
tive reason for separation and her reenlistment code be changed. 
 

The record indicates that after her first alcohol incident, the appli-
cant was properly and promptly screened and ordered to begin alcohol rehabili-
tative  treatment.    However,  she  subsequently  realized  the  low-level  treatment 
was not working and sought a higher level of treatment.  Prior to receiving that 
treatment,  she  had  a  second  alcohol  incident.    She  successfully  completed  the 
higher  level  of  alcohol  rehabilitative  treatment,  but  was  discharged  due  to  her 
second documented alcohol incident. 
 

4. 

The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief 
because,  although  the  code  and  narrative reason  shown  on  the  applicant’s  DD 
Form 214 do not perfectly describe the applicant’s situation, they are the closest 
available terms in the SPD Handbook.  Only codes and narrative reasons appear-
ing in the handbook may be used, and there is no separation code or narrative 
reason specifically designed for members who successfully complete rehabilita-
tive treatment prior to being discharged due to a second alcohol incident. 
 

5. 

The Board finds that the applicant was properly discharged follow-
ing her second alcohol incident under Article 20.B.2.h.2. of the Personnel Manual.  
The record indicates that the rehabilitative treatment the applicant received after 
her first alcohol incident failed.  While it is admirable that she voluntarily sought 
and successfully completed a higher level of treatment after her second alcohol 
incident,  this  does  not  negate  the  fact  that  the  applicant  initially  failed  to  be 
rehabilitated and that she was discharged as a result of that initial failure. 
 

6. 

 
The applicant’s case is distinguishable from that of the applicant in 
BCMR Docket No. 1998-047, whose treatment was delayed for many months by 
the Coast Guard and did not even begin until after his second alcohol incident.  
In contrast, the applicant in this case was properly and timely referred for reha-
bilitative treatment. 
 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the narrative reason for separation shown on her DD Form 214 is inaccurate.  
Nor has she proved that the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned to her is unjust. 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

7. 

8. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
Michael J. McMorrow 

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

USCG, is hereby denied.