DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                 BCMR Docket No. 2000-127 
 
 
  

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL 

ACTING UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

____  I approve the Majority Opinion of the Board. 

______   I approve the Minority Opinion of the Board.  

______  I concur in the relief recommended by the Majority 

   of the Board. 

 

 
 

       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date:  
 
 
 
 
  

 

 
 
 
 

1/11/02

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
   
   

     

Rosalind A. Knapp 
Deputy General Counsel 
as designated to act for the 
Secretary of Transportation 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2000-127 

  FINAL DECISION 

 
ULMER, Deputy Chairman: 
 
 
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  May  8,  2000,  upon  the 
Board's  receipt  of  the  applicant's  complete  application  for  correction  of  his  military 
record. 
 
 
This final decision, dated April 12, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.  One member of the 
Board dissented, in part, from the majority of the Board.  
 
 
The applicant, a former quartermaster second class (QM2; pay grade E-5) in the 
Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  DD  Form  2141  by  removing  "alcohol 
rehabilitation  failure"  as  the  narrative  reason  for  his  separation.  He  was  honorably 
discharged  by  reason  of  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure,  with  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  and  a  JPD  (alcohol  rehabilitation  failure)  separation 
code. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that his DD Form 214 is in error because it states that he 
was  discharged  due  to  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure.      The  applicant  claimed  that  he 
never received alcohol rehabilitation treatment.   He stated that his separation code and 
reason for discharge should be changed to "suit [his] situation"  
 
Background 
 
 
The applicant entered active duty on            and was discharged on              .  The 
reason  listed  on  the  DD  Form  214  for  the  applicant's  discharge  was  "alcohol 
rehabilitation  failure."    The  events  leading  to  the  applicant's  discharge  are  discussed 
below. 
                                                 
1  A DD Form 214 is a certificate of release or discharge from active duty.   

 

On                        ,  an  administrative  remarks  (page  7)  entry2  was  entered  into  the 
applicant's record documenting his first alcohol incident. The entry stated that on              
,  the  base  police  responded  to  a  complaint  of  loud  music  coming  from  the 
applicant's  room.    When  the  police  arrived,  they  found  alcoholic  beverages  in  the 
applicant's  room  and  detected  the  odor  of  alcohol.    The  applicant's  blood  alcohol 
content (BAC) was .073.  The applicant was warned that any further alcohol incidents of 
under age drinking could result in his discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
On              , two page 7 entries were entered in the applicant's record this date.  
The  first  entry  documented  the  fact  that  the  applicant  had  received  non-judicial 
punishment  (NJP)  for  the                                  incident.  He  was  not  recommended  for 
advancement. The second entry documented the fact that because of the alcohol-related 
incident  and  the  NJP,  the  applicant  was  given  a  mark  of  2  (1  to  7,  with  7  being  the 
highest) in the "health and well-being " category on a performance evaluation dated         
   . 
 

On                , a page 7 entry was entered in to the applicant's record documenting 
another alcohol incident. While on liberty in a club in Aruba, the applicant was drinking 
alcohol  and  became  belligerent  and  hostile  to  others  in  the  club.    He  was  ordered  to 
return to the ship and was advised that upon the ship's return to homeport, he would 
be screened for alcohol dependency. 
 

On          , the applicant received a page 7 entry advising him that his on base 
driving  privileges  were  suspended  for  one  year,  except  when  performing  work-
related/official functions.   

 
On          , the applicant was informed that the commanding officer (CO) had 
initiated  action  to  discharge  him  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  the  applicant  had 
incurred two alcohol-related incidents. The CO recommended that the applicant receive 
an  honorable  discharge.  The  applicant  acknowledged  the  notification  of  proposed 
discharge, objected to it, and wrote a statement in his own behalf. 

 
On          , the applicant was screened at a military addictions rehabilitation clinic 
(ARC)    by  a  licensed  psychologist.    The  psychologist  wrote  in  a  report  that  the 
"[applicant] has been medically evaluated as not needing alcohol or drug rehabilitative 
treatment."    He  recommended,  however,  that  the  applicant  receive  "stress/anger 
management classes." 
 
 
The  applicant's  statement,  dated  November  15,  1999,  requested  that  he  not  be 
discharged.   He stated that he had begun anger management classes and believed that 
                                                 
2 An administrative remarks (page 7) entry documents any counseling that is provided to a service 
member as well as any other noteworthy events that occur during that individual's military career.  
Unless otherwise indicated all page 7 entries in this case were acknowledged by the applicant with his 
signature. 

he  could  overcome  his  problems  with  alcohol.    He  stated  that,  due  to  a  shortage  of 
Coast Guard personnel in his rating, it would be in the best interest of the Coast Guard 
to retain him.   
 
The  applicant's  CO  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  retained  in  the  Coast 
 
Guard.  He also recommended that the applicant be sent to a level II alcohol treatment 
facility,  and  he  stated  that  the  command  was  in  the  process  of  obtaining  a  second 
alcohol  screening  for  the  applicant.    The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  was  currently 
undergoing  anger  management  counseling.    After  completing  these  courses,  the  CO 
recommended  that  the  applicant  be  given  a  six-month  probationary  period.    The  CO 
stated  that  the  applicant  was  an  above  average  performer  and  that  the  CO  had  been 
pleased with the applicant's performance as a quartermaster.   
 
 
On  December  31,  1999,  CGPC    approved the applicant's retention in the Coast 
Guard, provided that he "satisfactorily completes appropriate treatment and aftercare 
program."    CGPC  advised  the  applicant  that  any  further  alcohol-related  incidents 
would result in a recommendation for his separation from the Service. 
 
 
years. 
 
On             , a page 7 entry was entered into the applicant's record documenting 
 
his referral to the unit's collateral duty addictions representative regarding an alcohol 
incident  that  occurred  on  January  30,  2000  during  a  port  call.    The  applicant  was 
informed  that  this  was  considered  his  third  alcohol  incident  and  the  CO  was 
recommending that the applicant be honorably discharged from the Coast Guard.  The 
page 7 entry further read as follows: 
 

On                , the applicant reenlisted  in the Coast Guard for a period of six 

You  also  have  documented  AIs  (alcohol  incidents)  dated      and      .    You 
were  required  to  undergo  alcohol  screening  on                    at  the  Navy 
Counseling  and  Assistance  Center  (CAAC)  in                    in  which  it  was 
determined that you do not appear to be alcohol dependent, but that you 
demonstrate  poor 
judgment  and  irresponsibility  in  your  drinking 
behavior.    You  were  also  required  to  attend  personal  Responsibilities  & 
Values Education & training . . . Level I.  On 99 Oct 22 you were again sent 
to the Navy Addictions Rehabilitation Clinic (ARC) . . . where you were 
screened for alcohol abuse & dependency.  While the medical evaluation, 
based on your screening, was that you did not need alcohol rehabilitative 
treatment,  it  did  recommend  that  you  receive  anger  management 
counseling.    Anger  management  counseling  was  arranged  for  you  .  .  . 
which you failed to complete. 

 
 
On      , the applicant's CO informed him that he was being recommended for 
discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  he  had  been  involved  in  a  third  alcohol 
incident. The applicant acknowledged the notification of separation, acknowledged that 

he could submit a statement in his behalf (but declined to submit a statement), and did 
not object to being discharged from the Coast Guard.   
 

On          , a page 7 entry was entered in the applicant's record documenting the 
fact  that  the  applicant  was  taken  to  NJP  on  March  1,  2000,  for  being  drunk  and 
disorderly on      .  He did not receive punishment for this offense. 
 
 
On           , the applicant was advised in another  page 7 entry that he was not 
being recommended for reenlistment due to his involvement in a third alcohol incident.  
 
 
A  third  page  7  entry,  dated                  ,  directed  the  applicant  to  attend  anger 
management counseling and to advise the command if he could not make any of the 
scheduled meetings.  
 
On          , the applicant's CO wrote to CGPC that the applicant had been involved 
 
in  his  third  alcohol  incident  and  was  being  recommended  for  discharge.    The  CO 
further stated that the applicant was a slightly above average performer, but he had not 
taken  the  positive  steps  required  to  improve  his  condition  and  has  failed  to 
acknowledge that he has a problem with alcohol.    
 
 
On            ,  CGPC  approved  the  applicant's  honorable  discharge  from  the  Coast 
Guard because of unsuitability (Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual).  CGPC  also 
stated  that  the  applicant  should  be  given  a  JPD  (alcohol  rehabilitation  failure) 
separation code. 
 
 
On              ,  the  applicant's  CO  sent  a  message  to  CGPC  questioning  the  JPD 
separation code.  He stated that the narrative reason associated with the JPD separation 
code and the reason for separation do not accurately reflect the member's situation.  He 
requested  advice  on  assigning    a  "suitable  narrative  reason  for  the  applicant's 
discharge."   
 
On April 17, 2000, CGPC told the applicant's former CO that another code could 
 
not  be  authorized  for  use  on  the  applicant's  DD  Form  214.    (The  applicant  had  been 
discharged  on  April  11,  2000.)    He  stated that only the codes listed in the Separation 
Program Designator Handbook (SPD) could be used.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
On  December  1,  2000,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Chief 
 
Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard.    He  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  to  the 
applicant.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant failed to prove that his discharge by 
reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure was erroneous.  He stated that the "applicant's 
'alcohol  rehabilitation  failure' was his failure to remain uninvolved with alcohol after 

 

his  first  incident  and  was  not  an  evaluative  comment  based  on  the  member's 
performance at a post-incident abuse program."   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  was  properly  processed  and 
discharged from the Service.  Under the authority of Article 12.B.16.b.(5) and 20.B.2.h.2, 
a CO is required to process a member for separation after a second documented alcohol 
incident.   The Chief Counsel noted that the applicant in this case was not discharged 
from the Service until after he had committed a third alcohol incident.  He was given 
special consideration and retained in the Service after his second alcohol incident.  
 

With  respect  to  the  reason  for  separation  and  the  separation  code,  the  Chief 

Counsel offered the following: 
 

 
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 

All five Armed Services use DOD's SPD [separation program designator] 
handbook to assign SPD codes.  The only SPD codes available where the 
discharge  is  related  to  the  misuse  of  alcohol  and  disciplinary  action  or 
sufficient  misconduct  did  not  occur  to  warrant  an  OTH    (other  than 
honorable) 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 regard to the use of alcohol. In the 
instant case, Applicant alleges his "alcohol rehabilitation failure" SPD code 
was in error because his discharge was unrelated to his completion of a 
substance abuse program after his second alcohol incident.  However, that 
is  not  the  "alcohol  rehabilitation  failure"  the  SPD  code  refers  to.  
Applicant's  "alcohol  rehabilitation  failure"  was  his  failure  to  remain 
alcohol free after his first and second incident and was not an evaluative 
comment  based  on  the  member's  performance  at  a  post-incident  abuse 
program. . . .  Therefore, the Board may properly conclude the assignment 
of  the  SPD  "JPD"  for  "alcohol  rehabilitation  failure"  is  reasonable  as 
applied to the facts in this case. 

Moreover, these codes are for the internal use of the Coast Guard and the 
other Armed Forces.  Applicant failed to complete his enlistment because 
of misconduct involving his misuse of alcohol.  Because the statutes and 
implementing  guidance  related  to  SPD  codes  do  not  create  individual 
entitlements 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  otherwise  provided  by  statute  or 
the 
Constitution.  See, e.g. United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).   

 

On January 29, 2001, the Board received the applicant's response to the views of 

 
the Coast Guard.  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  refused  to  accept  a  separation  code  that  does  not 
directly apply to him or his situation.  He stated that the alcohol rehabilitation failure 
separation code does not apply to him because he did not refuse to participate in or fail 
to  complete  any  alcohol  rehabilitation  program.   Moreover, he stated that he did not 
and does not have a drinking problem.  He stated that it did not make sense that the 
Coast Guard would reenlist him for six years in          , if he had an alcohol-related 
problem.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  his  life  has  been  ruined  and  he  can  not  join  another 
branch of the service because he was given a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) 
reenlistment code.  He requested that his reenlistment code be upgraded.  He claimed 
that he was not told of the effect that a discharge for alcohol rehabilitation failure would 
have on his life.   In this regard he stated:  "If I would have been remotely told of what 
could  happen  if  discharged  for  alcohol  related  situations  nobody  in  their  right  mind 
would take a chance on this happening and I didn't." 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  singled  out  for  discharge  because  he  was 
outspoken and he was not "one of the boys."  With respect to his last alcohol incident, 
the applicant stated the following: 
 

The last incident when I so called struck a shipmate in a club in Aruba we 
both were drinking and slap boxing.  He struck me as well and nothing at 
all happened to him and I was discharged.  The commanding officer took 
statements  from  six  individuals  who  admitted  to  being  drunk.    This 
would never have stuck in a civilian court.   

 
 
The applicant stated that he was an excellent quartermaster and an asset to the 
Coast Guard.  He stated that 'an awful mistake and act has taken place and it must be 
resolved so [he] can have this code changed.  Also, so [he] can join another branch of the 
service or maybe get back in the Coast Guard."  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Personnel Manual 
 

 

 
Article  12.B.16.b.of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  purpose  of  an 
unsuitability  discharge  is  to  free  the  Service  of  members  considered  unsuitable  for 
further service because of: . . . 5.  Alcohol abuse. 

 
Chapter  20.A.2.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  defines  alcohol  incident  as  "[a]ny 
behavior  in  which  the  use  or  abuse  of  alcohol  is  determined  to  be  a  significant  or 
causative factor and which results in the member's loss of ability to perform assigned 

duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or federal, state, or local laws. . .  [T]he member must 
actually have consumed alcohol." 

 
Chapter  20.B.2.h.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  enlisted  members 
involved  in  a  second  alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation  in 
accordance with Article 12.B.16. (unsuitability) of the Personnel Manual.  

 
Chapter  20.B.2.i.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  "[e]nlisted  members 
involved in a third alcohol incident shall be processed for separation from the Service." 

 
Chapter  20.B.2.j.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  underage  drinking  is 

considered an alcohol incident.   

 

Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 
 
 
"This  handbook  is  to  be  used  in  conjunction  with  the  Certificate  of  Release  or 
Discharge  From  Active  Duty,  DD  Form  214  (COMDTINST  M1900.4  (series)).    The 
direction  provided  in  that  instruction  refers  to  this  handbook,  which  contains  a 
comprehensive listing of the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes used in Block 
26 of DD Form 214." 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook states that the JPD (alcohol 
rehabilitation  failure)  separation  code  is  assigned  when  there  is  an  "involuntary 
discharge  directed  by  established  directive  (no  board  entitlement)  when  a  member 
failed  through  inability  or  refusal  to  participate  in,  cooperate  in,  or  successfully 
complete a treatment program for alcohol rehabilitation." 
 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) 
 
 
COMDTINST  M1900.4D  states  that  "[t]he  DD  Form  214  provides  the  member 
and the service with a concise record of a period of service with the Armed Forces at the 
time of the member's separation, discharge or change in military status. . . .  In addition, 
the form is an authoritative source of information for both governmental agencies and 
the  Armed  Forces  for  purposes  of  employment,  benefit  and  enlistment  eligibility, 
respectively." 
 
 
This  instruction  further  states  that  it  is  to  be  used  in  conjunction  with  the 
Separation Program Designator Handbook.  In completing block 26 (separation code) 
on  the  DD  Form  214,  the  instruction  states  that  an  appropriate  separation  code 
associated with a particular authority and reason for separation as shown in the SPD 
handbook or as stated by the military personnel command in the message authorizing 
discharge should be entered in this block. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The BCMR has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  submissions  and  military  record,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
10, United States Code.  The application is timely. 
 
 
2.  This case involves two separate but related matters: the first is whether the 
basis for the separation itself is in accord with the regulation; and the second is whether 
the  DD  Form  214  fairly  and  accurately  describes  the  reason  for  the  applicant's 
separation from the Coast Guard.  The applicant was processed for separation because 
of  his  involvement  in  a  third  alcohol  incident.    Section  20.B.2i.  states  that  an  enlisted 
member involved in a third alcohol incident will be processed for separation from the 
Coast Guard.  The applicant's alcohol incidents consisted of underage drinking, which 
Chapter 20 of the Personnel Manual classifies as alcohol incidents, and two instances of 
drunken and disorderly conduct, each occurring at a bar in a foreign country. 
 
 
3.  The applicant was advised after his first alcohol incident that a second alcohol 
incident could result in his separation from the Service. On September 5, 1999, a page 7 
entry in the applicant's record documented a second alcohol incident and advised the 
applicant  that  he  was  subject  to  administrative  separation.    Administrative  discharge 
proceedings  were  begun  against  the applicant and he requested to be retained in the 
Coast  Guard.  Based  on  the  CO's favorable recommendation regarding the applicant's 
request,  CGPC  ordered  the  applicant  to  be  retained  in  the  Service  on            .  
Approximately  30  days  later,  on              ,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  a  third  alcohol 
incident, while the ship was in       .  On       , the applicant was taken to NJP for being 
drunk  and  disorderly  on              .    The  CO  began  mandatory  administrative  discharge 
proceedings against the applicant because of his involvement in a third alcohol incident.  
The  applicant  declined  to  make  a  statement  in  his  behalf  and  did  not  object  to  the 
discharge.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant was processed for separation 
in accordance with the Personnel Manual.  The Board further finds that he was properly 
discharged from the Coast Guard for committing a third alcohol incident.  
 
 
4.  The applicant states that he was singled out and treated unfairly because he 
was not "one of the boys."  However, the fact that the applicant's CO stood by him after 
recommending  his  discharge  after  the  applicant's  second  alcohol  incident  contradicts 
the  applicant's  assertion  that  somehow  the  CO  was  prejudiced  against him.  There is 
persuasive evidence that the applicant was disorderly when he drank alcohol.  
 
 
5.    The  applicant  argues  that  if  he  had  such  a  "bad"  problem  why  would  the 
Coast Guard permit him to reenlist in      .  The Board finds no contradiction here.  The 
applicant  asked  to  be  retained  in  the  Coast  Guard  after  discharge  processing  began 
against him for being involved in a second alcohol incident.   His CO and CGPC treated 
him  with  leniency  and  he  was  permitted  to  remain  in  the  service.    The  applicant 

brought  about  his  discharge  by  committing  his  third  alcohol  incident  after  being 
advised that such conduct would result in his separation.  There is no regulation that 
states  that  a  member  cannot  be  discharged  at  the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of  an 
enlistment  or  reenlistment.    Moreover,  the  restriction  on  the  number  of  alcohol 
incidents allowed under Chapter 20 of the Personnel Manual is for an entire career and 
not for each period of enlistment. 
 
 
6.  The next question is whether the reason for separation (alcohol rehabilitation 
failure) and the corresponding JPD separation code that are listed on the applicant's DD 
Form  214  accurately  and  fairly  describe  the  reason  for  his  separation.    The  Board  is 
persuaded  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  listing  alcohol 
rehabilitation failure as the reason for the applicant's separation from the Coast Guard.  
The  reason  for  the  applicant's  separation  was  his  involvement  in  a  third  alcohol 
incident, not "alcohol rehabilitation failure."  These two terms are not synonymous.  The 
SPD Handbook makes this distinction clear when it states that the alcohol rehabilitation 
failure  separation  code  (JPD)  is  assigned  "when  a  member  failed  through  inability  or 
refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete a treatment program for 
alcohol rehabilitation." (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
7.  There is no evidence in the record that the applicant failed through inability or 
refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete a treatment program for 
alcohol rehabilitation.  
 
 
8.    After  the  applicant's  second  alcohol  incident,  he  was  screened  for  alcohol 
abuse.  Although  he  was  not  determined  to  be  alcohol  dependent  at  that  time,  the 
clinician  determined  that  the  applicant  would  benefit  from  stress  and  anger 
management  classes.    From  the  CO's  comments  in  one  of  the  page  7  entries,  the 
applicant  failed  to  complete  these  classes.  No  evidence  has  been  presented  that 
stress/anger  management  classes  are  the  equivalent  of  an  alcohol  rehabilitation 
program.  Therefore, the Board finds that the reason listed on the applicant's DD Form 
214  for  his  separation  -  "alcohol  rehabilitation  failure"  -  is  either  in  error  or  unjust. 
Nowhere on the DD Form 214 does it state that the applicant was discharged because of 
an involvement in a third alcohol incident.  A reading of the DD Form 214 suggests that 
the applicant was treated for alcohol abuse/dependency but incurred a relapse.  This is 
simply not the case. 
 
 
9.  The Coast Guard argues that the codes in the SPD handbook, which is used by 
all five armed services, will match the basis for separation in some cases, but in others  
"it is a general statement that serves a multitude of situations in which a member failed 
to adhere to Coast Guard policy with regard to the use of alcohol."  This may well be 
true,  but  the  issue  is  whether  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  have  a  DD  Form  214  that 
describes the reason for his separation in a fair and accurate manner. It is unfair to list 
the applicant as a alcohol rehabilitation failure when there is no evidence that he was 
ever  entered  into  a  alcohol  rehabilitation  treatment  program.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
record  that  suggests  that  the  applicant  refused  to  participate  in,  cooperate  in,  or 

successfully complete such treatment program.  Being labeled an alcohol rehabilitation 
failure carries with it a certain stigma, which is even more reason that the DD Form 214 
should fairly depict the circumstances under which the discharge occurred.   
 
10.  The Chief Counsel argues that the alcohol rehabilitation failure mentioned in 
 
the applicant's case is the failure to remain alcohol free after his first alcohol incident.  
This  interpretation  by  the  Chief  Counsel  appears  to  be  contrary  to  the  explanation 
provided in the SPD Handbook for alcohol rehabilitation failure.  As stated above, this 
explanation clearly states the alcohol rehabilitation code is assigned when "a member 
failed  through  inability  or  refusal  to  participate  in,  cooperate  in,  or  successfully 
complete a treatment program for alcohol rehabilitation." (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
11.    The  Board  notes  that  when  the  applicant  was  informed  that  he was being 
processed  for  separation,  he  was  told  that  the  basis  for  his  separation  was  his 
involvement  in  a  third  alcohol  incident.    He  was  never  told  that  he  was  being 
discharged because of "alcohol rehabilitation failure."  
 
 
12. Chapter 20 of the Personnel Manual states that a member involved in a third 
alcohol incident will be discharged in accordance with Article 12.B.16 (unsuitability) of 
the Personnel Manual.  However, since unsuitability is not listed in the SPD handbook 
as  a  narrative  reason  for  separation,  it  has  no  corresponding  separation  code.  
Therefore, unsuitability cannot be assigned as the reason for the applicant's separation 
on the DD Form 214.  The only other separation code in the SPD Handbook that will fit 
the  applicant's  situation  is  the  JND  separation  code.    The  narrative  reason  that 
corresponds  to  JND  is  "separation  for  miscellaneous/general  reasons"  and  the 
separation  authority  is  12.B.12    (convenience  of  the  government)  of  the  Personnel 
Manual. 
  Either  an  RE-1  (eligible  for  reenlistment)  or  an  RE-4  (ineligible  for 
reenlistment) reenlistment code may be assigned with this separation code.  Therefore, 
the  Board  will  not  change  the  applicant's  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    There  is  ample 
justification in the record for discharging the applicant from the Coast Guard and for 
not recommending him for reenlistment. 
. 
 
13.    The  Board  notes  the  Chief  Counsel's  argument  that  the  Coast  Guard's 
violation of agency regulations would not create a private right of action on the part of 
the  applicant.    However,  10  U.S.C.  1552  gives  the  applicant  the  right  to  request  the 
correction of errors or injustices that may exist in his record. 
 
 
 
 

14.   Accordingly, relief should be granted to the applicant. 

ORDER 

 
 
Form 214 shall be corrected in the following manner:   
 

The application of       for correction of his military record is granted.   His DD 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Block  25  shall  be  corrected  to  show  Article  12-B-12,  Personnel 

 
Manual as the separation authority. 
 
 
 
 
"separation 
miscellaneous/general reasons" as the narrative reason for separation. 

 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show JND as the separation code. 
 
Block  28 

shall  be 

corrected 

for 

to 

show 

All other relief is denied. 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

*see dissenting opinion 
James K. Augustine 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2000-127 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
  
 
    
 

DISSENTING OPINION 

 
Deputy Chairman Ulmer: 
 
While I agree with the underlying rationale adopted by the Board that the SPD Code JPD 
should not be utilized in cases where alcohol rehabilitation programs are not involved, 
and where all that is involved is one or more alcohol incidents, I respectfully dissent from 
application instead of the SPD Code JND, as determined by the Board today.  As noted 
by Attorney-Advisor Andrews in Application of xxxxxxx, Docket No. 98-047, I feel that 
the SPD Code JNC, Unacceptable Conduct, RE-4, 12-B-16 (Involuntary discharge directed 
by established directive . . . .) would be more appropriate.  I recognize that in xxxxxxx 
application of that SPD Code was not "contested", and that the JND Code may also not be 
a  precise  fit,  but  I  respectfully  submit  that,  at  least  for  this  matter,  it  is  the  better 
alternative to the JND Code.         
 
James K. Augustine 
(electronically submitted)