DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-098 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The application was 
received  on  March  22,  2000,  and  completed  upon  the  BCMR’s  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s military records on May 1, 2000. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  22,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxx who received a general discharge under 
honorable  conditions  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  xxxx,  1993,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  reenlistment  (RE)  code  from  RE-4  to  RE-1 
and by changing his separation code from HKK, which indicates an involuntary 
separation due to drug use, to one that does not reflect drug use. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  1993  an  angry  ex-girlfriend  told  his  com-
mand that he had smoked marijuana.  He alleged that her accusation was a lie 
told to get revenge.  He alleged that even though he passed a urinalysis test, a 
Coast Guard investigator badgered him unremittingly to get him to say he had 
smoked marijuana.  He alleged that the investigator told him that the problems 
would “go away” if he made a voluntary statement confessing to drug use.  He 
alleged  that  he  did  not  feel  as  if  he  had  any  choice  and  that  the  statement  he 
made on April 14, 1993, in which he admitted to having smoked marijuana three 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 2 

times  since  he  enlisted  in  1987,  was  neither  voluntary  nor  true.    Therefore,  he 
retracted that statement on May 10, 1993. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  took  no  action  against  him 
 
other than removing him from “A” School and discharging him at the end of his 
enlistment because there was no “physical  proof” of his alleged  drug use.  He 
alleged that it was unfair for the Coast Guard to assign him the RE-4 and HKK 
separation codes solely on the basis of a statement he wrote under pressure.  He 
alleged that the Coast Guard unjustly took these punitive administrative actions 
because it had insufficient evidence to prosecute him. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  wants  to  join  the  Navy  but  was  told  by  a 
Navy recruiter on January 25, 2000, that he cannot enlist with an RE-4 and HKK 
separation code.  He alleged that, prior to that day, he did not know what the 
RE-4 and HKK meant.  In support of his application, he submitted a letter from a 
Navy recruiter stating that he could be a definite asset to the Navy if he became 
eligible for reenlistment.   
 

The  applicant  also  submitted  character  references  from  (1)  a  chief  boat-
swain’s mate who was Officer in Charge of the applicant’s station in xxxxx and 
who  praised  his  professionalism,  dedication,  seamanship,  responsibility,  and 
leadership; (2) the Executive Petty Officer of the station, who called the applicant 
a “very professional individual” who “performed flawlessly”; (3) a former boat-
swain’s  mate  second  class,  who  supervised  the  applicant’s  search  and  rescue 
boatcrew from 1990 to 1993 and who praised the applicant’s skill, drive, matur-
ity, and leadership; and (4) a retired Army colonel, who “unhesitatingly recom-
mended” the applicant as a “self motivated and well organized” man of “matur-
ity.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On xxxxxxx, 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  
After training, he was assigned as a seaman apprentice to the xxxxx in the xxxx.  
On  February  28,  1989,  as  a  crewmember  of  the  xxxxxxx,  he  received  a  Special 
Operations  Service  Ribbon.    After  two  years,  he  was  promoted  to  seaman  and 
transferred  to  a  station  in  xxxxxx,  where  he  continued  to  serve  until  February 
1993.  
 

On  August  17,  1989,  the  applicant’s  command  documented  an  “alcohol 
incident”  in  which  he  was  determined  to  have  driven  “under  the  influence  of 
alcohol with an EOTH level of .161% on xxxxx 1989.”  In 1991, he extended his 
enlistment for two years, from June 8, 1991, through June 7, 1993.  On April 6, 
1992, he was counseled about showing “disrespect towards his superiors.”   

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 3 

 
On  February  5,  1993,  the  applicant  was  transferred  to  the  Coast  Guard 

training center in xxxxx, to attend “A” School and become a xxxxxxxxxx.   

 
On xxxxxx, 1993, upon returning from a few days’ leave, the applicant’s 
command required him to undergo urinalysis, apparently as a result of the accu-
sation of a girlfriend with whom he had just broken up. 

 
On  April  14,  1993,  at  10:36  a.m.,  the  applicant  signed  an  “Acknowledg-
ment of Understanding of Rights,” indicating that he knew that (1) he was being 
investigated for illegal drug usage; (2) he had the right to remain silent; (3) he 
had a right to consult a lawyer—either private or appointed by the military—and 
have  that  lawyer  present  during  any  further  questioning;  (4)  the  interviewer 
would stop questioning him if he requested a lawyer; (5) anything he said could 
be  used  against  him  “in  any  court-martial, nonjudicial  proceeding,  administra-
tive proceeding or civilian court”; and (6) if he chose to speak, he could stop at 
any time and request a lawyer.  On the same form, he indicated that he had pre-
viously been questioned about the matter and wanted to make a statement.  He 
did not check either the box indicating that he wanted to consult a lawyer or the 
box indicating that he did not want to consult a lawyer. 

 
Later  that  day,  the  applicant  signed  the  following  sworn,  “voluntary” 
statement,  indicating  that  no  threats  or  promises  had  been  made  and  that  he 
knew that making a false statement would be a violation of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice: 

 
I,  …,  on  three  occasion  [sic]  in  my  Coast  Guard  career,  have 
smoked  pot.    On  all  occasion  [sic]  I  had  been  drinking.    I’m  not 
making excuses for my action and will take any punishment givein 
[sic].  I just wont [sic] to get on with my life.  I regrette [sic] that it 
has  come  to  this  and  I  would  like  to  say  I’m  sorry  to  all  parties 
involved.    I  have  enjoyed  my  enlistment  a  great  deal,  and  have 
been proud to be a member of the Unite [sic] States Coast Guard.  
I’m not a drug abuser, and have only smoked on those three occa-
sion [sic].  I apologize for what I have done. 
 
Also on April 14, 1993, the applicant was disenrolled from “A” School due 

to his “voluntary confession of drug use.”  

 
On April 15, 1993, the investigator prepared his report.  The investigator 
noted  that  the  applicant  had  previously  been  questioned  about  allegations  of 
drug use by the training center’s military police, who concluded that he had been 
deceptive.  The investigator reported that the applicant had been advised of the 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 4 

charges  against  him—possession  and  use  of  illegal  drugs—and  of  his  right  to 
have a lawyer present prior to and during the interview.  He reported that the 
applicant  had  admitted  smoking  marijuana  on  three  occasions  since  enlisting: 
while on vacation with friends in 1989; while “partying” with the same friends in 
1992; and, most recently, while “partying” at his (now former) girlfriend’s house 
on the weekend of March 19 through 21, 1993.  The investigator stated that the 
applicant  admitted  to  having  drunk  alcohol prior to  each  incident  of  drug  use 
and  to  having  lied  to the  military  police  when  asked  about  his  drug  use.    The 
investigator stated that the applicant indicated that he believed that the urinaly-
sis conducted on xxxxxx, would show that he had smoked marijuana recently. 

 
On  April  29,  1993,  the  Environmental  Chemical  Corporation  sent  the 
applicant’s  command  the  results  of  the  urinalysis  conducted  on  xxxxxxx,  1993.  
The test results were negative. 

 
On May 7, 1993, the applicant was notified that the commanding officer 
(CO)  of  the  training  center  was  requesting authority  to  discharge  him  for  mis-
conduct due to drug abuse.  He indicated that he wanted to consult an attorney 
and make a statement. On May 10, 1993, after consulting with an attorney, the 
applicant signed a statement denying drug use “to set the record straight once 
and  for  all.”    He  stated  that  he  was  hurt  that  his  command  had  believed  his 
angry  ex-girlfriend  instead  of  him  and  that  he  had  felt  pressure  to  confess  to 
drug use because he was in a “no win” situation since the Coast Guard believed 
he  was  guilty.    He  stated  that  he  did  not  “use  his  head”  and  signed  the  false 
statement on April 14, 1993, as the “easiest and fastest way out.”  He stated that 
the negative results of his urinalysis on xxxxxx, prove that his earlier statement 
was  false  because,  if  he  had  smoked  marijuana  on  the  weekend  of  March  19 
through  21,  1993,  his  urinalysis  would  have  been  positive.    He  asked  for  an 
honorable discharge. 
 

On May 25, 1993, the commanding officer of the training center requested 
authority  to  discharge  the  applicant  due  to  his  involvement  with  drugs.    The 
commanding  officer  recommended  to  the  Commandant  that  he  be  awarded  a 
general discharge by reason of misconduct.  On June 2, 1993, the Commandant 
ordered his command to award him a general discharge by reason of misconduct 
with an HKK separation code within 30 days. 
 
 
On xxxxxxx, 1993, after serving six years and seven days on active duty, 
the applicant was discharged by reason of misconduct in accordance with Article 
12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual.  His DD 214 shows “under honorable condi-
tions”  as  the  character  of  discharge;  “misconduct”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation; RE-4 as his reenlistment code; and HKK as his separation code. 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 5 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 30, 2000, the Chief Counsel submitted an advisory opinion 

 
 
in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case. 
  

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  application  should  be  denied  for 
untimeliness and lack of merit.  The application is untimely, he argued, because 
more than three years have passed since the applicant received his DD 214 with 
the HKK separation code and the RE-4 reenlistment code.  He argued that the 
date the applicant received his DD 214 should be considered the day the appli-
cant received constructive notice of the alleged error in his record.  Moreover, the 
Chief Counsel argued, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to war-
rant  the  Board’s  finding  that  the  untimeliness  of  the  application  should  be 
waived in the interest of justice, as required under Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 
68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 
The Chief Counsel further argued that, if the Board should waive the stat-
ute of limitations and accept the application, the request for correction should be 
denied  for  lack  of  merit  because  the  applicant  received  all  due  process  with 
respect to his discharge.  As a member with less than eight years of active serv-
ice, he argued, the applicant was not entitled to a hearing before an Administra-
tive  Discharge  Board  prior  to  being  discharged.    Under  Article  12.B.16.d., 
members with less than eight years of service are entitled only to (1) notice of the 
reason for discharge, (2) an opportunity to consult counsel if they are being con-
sidered  for  a  general  discharge,  and  (3)  an  opportunity  to  make  a  statement.  
Therefore,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  the  applicant  received  all  the  process  he 
was due during the processing of his discharge. 

 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the Coast Guard’s decision not to prose-
cute the applicant did not estop it from administratively discharging him at the 
end of his enlistment on the basis of the information gained in the investigation.  
He argued that the applicant was expressly warned that the voluntary statement 
he provided could be used against him “in any court-martial, non-judicial pro-
ceeding, administrative proceeding, or civilian court.”  The Chief Counsel argued 
that the decision of the applicant’s commanding officer to initiate his discharge 
“was reasonable in light of the credence afforded Applicant’s voluntary admis-
sion.”  He alleged that the applicant’s admission of April 14, 1993, as a statement 
against  interest,  is  more  credible  than  his  later  recantation.    Furthermore,  he 
pointed out that the admission is credible because the applicant provided details 
of his drug use. 

 
Finally, the Chief Counsel argued that, even if the Board were to find the 
applicant’s recantation more credible than his admission of drug use, the Board 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 6 

must conclude that the applicant has signed and sworn to at least one false offi-
cial  statement  and  his  discharge  cannot  be  considered  treatment  by  a  military 
authority that “shocks the sense of justice” and therefore requires action by the 
Board.  Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 
930 F.2d 1577 (citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 4, 2000, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the advi-
sory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant did not 
respond.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  20.C.2.a.3.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a 
member  may  be  required  to  undergo  urinalysis  whenever  there  is  probably 
cause to believe he has used an illegal drug.  Article 20.C.3.a. states that a com-
manding officer shall initiate an investigation of a possible “drug incident” fol-
lowing the receipt of a positive confirmed urinalysis or “any other evidence of 
drug  abuse.”    Article  20.A.2.k.  defines  “drug  incident”  as  “[i]ntentional  drug 
abuse, wrongful possession of, or trafficking in drugs. …  The member need not 
be found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded NJP for the 
behavior to be considered a drug incident.”  Article 20.C.3.b. states that members 
must be advised of their rights under the UCMJ before being questioned about 
possible drug incidents.   

 
Article  20.C.3.c.  states  that  a  commanding  officer  should  determine 
whether a “drug incident” has occurred, warranting further action, based on the 
preponderance  of  all  available  evidence,  including  urinalysis  results  and  state-
ments.  Article 20.C.3.d. states that a “member’s admission of drug use or a posi-
tive  confirmed  test  result,  standing  alone,  may  be  sufficient  to  establish  inten-
tional use and thus suffice to meet this burden of proof.” 

 
Article 20.C.4. states that, if a commanding officer determines that a drug 
incident has occurred, he or she “will process the member for separation by rea-
son  of  misconduct  under  Articles  12.A.11.,  12.A.15.,  12.A.21.,  or  12.B.18.,  as 
appropriate.    Cases  requiring  Administrative  Discharge  Boards  because  of  the 
character of discharge contemplated or because the member has served a total of 
eight  or  more  years,  will  be  processed  under  Articles  12.B.31.  and  12.B.32.,  as 
appropriate.” 
 

Article 12.B.18.b.4. provides that the Commander of the Military Person-
nel Command shall discharge an enlisted member involved in a “drug incident,” 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 7 

as defined in Article 20, with no higher than a general discharge.  Article 12-B-
2.c.(2) states that a “general discharge” is a separation “under honorable condi-
tions.” 
 
 
Article  12.B.18.d.  states  that  an  Administrative  Discharge  Board  shall  be 
held whenever a member being administratively discharged has more than eight 
years of service and in “[a]ll cases where a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions  by  reason  of  misconduct  is  contemplated.”    Article  12.B.18.e.  states 
that members with less than eight years of service who are being recommended 
for  an  honorable  or  general  discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct  must  (a)  be 
informed in writing of the reason they are being considered for discharge, (b) be 
afforded an opportunity to make a statement in writing, and (c) “[i]f a general 
discharge is contemplated, be afforded an opportunity to consult with a lawyer.” 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook states that persons 
involuntarily  discharged  for  illegal  drug  use,  which  is  supported  by  evidence 
other  than  urinalysis  or  voluntary  drug  rehabilitation  treatment,  shall  be 
assigned an HKK separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and “misconduct” 
as the narrative reason for separation shown on their DD 214s.  The Handbook 
requires  that  its  contents  be  closely  guarded  because  “codes  contain  extremely 
personal and intimate information about a service member’s discharge.”  How-
ever, “specific information about the meaning of the SPD Code on a member’s 
DD Form 214 can be given to that member.” 

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. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  separation  code  and  reenlistment 
code are in error.  An application to the Board must be filed within three years 
after the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The 
Chief Counsel argued that those three years should be counted from the date the 
applicant received his DD 214 with the contested coded information because he 
should be considered to have had constructive knowledge of the codes since that 
time.  Because the Coast Guard and other military services purposely guard the 
meaning of separation codes, the Board frequently waives the statute of limita-
tions when members do not discover the meaning and effect of their codes until 
more than three years after they receive their DD 214s.  Although the SPD Hand-

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 8 

3. 

book  allows  members  to  be  informed  of  the  meaning  of  their  own  separation 
codes, there is no requirement that they be so informed and, in the Board’s expe-
rience, veterans are often unaware of the meaning of their separation codes.  The 
meaning and effect of reenlistment codes, on the other hand, are not kept secret 
and are fairly common knowledge in the military.   
 

In the case at hand, the applicant signed an acknowledgement on 
May 7, 1993, of the fact that he was being recommended for a misconduct dis-
charge  due  to  drug  abuse,  which  is  the  essence  of  an  HKK  separation  code.  
Moreover, his recantation shows that he knew his pending discharge was based 
on  his  own  admission  of  drug  use  rather  than  on  the  results  of  the  urinalysis, 
which he knew were negative.  Moreover, while it may be conceivable for some 
members not to be aware of the meaning and effect of an RE-4 reenlistment code 
when they receive their DD 214s, the applicant was advised by counsel concern-
ing his pending discharge.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is inconceivable that 
the  applicant  was  not  informed,  at  or  before  the  time  of  his  discharge,  that  he 
would not be allowed to reenlist in the military.  While the applicant may have 
forgotten this fact by January 2000, a faulty memory does not justify waiving the 
statute  of  limitations.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  knew  or 
should  have  known  the  meaning  and  effect  of  his  separation  and  reenlistment 
codes  when  he  received  his  DD  214  in  1993,  and  his  request  for  correction  is 
untimely. 

 
4. 

5. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-year 
statute  of  limitations  if  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    To  determine 
whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board 
should conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. 
Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  
 
 
A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that on April 
14, 1993, the applicant signed a voluntary, credible, detailed admission of drug 
use on three separate occasions  while he was serving on active duty.  He pro-
vided no evidence of coercion or duress that would diminish the  credibility of 
this statement, despite his later recantation.  Under Article 20.C.3.d. of the Per-
sonnel Manual, the applicant’s commanding officer could reasonably determine 
that he had been involved in a “drug incident” based solely on his admission and 
initiate his administrative discharge under Articles 20.C.4. and 12.B.18.  
 

The record further indicates that the applicant was properly noti-
fied of his pending general discharge due to drug abuse on May 7, 1993; that he 
was afforded and took advantage of the opportunity to consult with an attorney 
on  May  10,  1993;  and  that  he  was  allowed  to  submit  a  statement  on  his  own 

6. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 9 

behalf,  in  accordance  with  his  rights  under  Article  12.B.18.e.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  

The  Board’s  review  of  the  record  in  this  case  indicates  that  the 
Coast  Guard  committed  no  error  or  injustice  in  processing  the  applicant’s  dis-
charge  or  in  awarding  him  an  HKK  separation  code  and  an  RE-4  reenlistment 
code.  Under the SPD Handbook, these codes are appropriate and required for 
members, like the applicant, being involuntarily discharged due to drug abuse 
not  proven  by  urinalysis  but  supported  by  other  evidence,  such  as  their  own 
admission. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

More than seven years have passed since the applicant’s discharge 
and  admission  of  illegal  drug  use,  and  he  has  presented  statements  indicating 
that his skills would be of use in the Navy.  However, the military services have 
all  determined  through  their  common  regulations  that  any  intentional  illegal 
drug use by a member automatically results in his or her absolute disqualifica-
tion for reenlistment in any military service.  Although a Navy recruiter may be 
interested in reenlisting him, the applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard 
committed any error or injustice by assigning him the HKK separation code and 
RE-4 reenlistment code that block his reenlistment under the regulations of the 
Navy and every other military service.  
 
 
basis of its untimeliness and for lack of merit. 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied both on the 

9. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE] 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-098                                                    p. 10 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

record is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Murray A. Bloom 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 
Kathryn Sinniger