DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-011 
 
  
   

 

 
 
 

       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date:   9/24/01
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL 

ACTING UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

___X___  I approve the recommended Order of the Board. 

______  I disapprove the recommended Order of the Board.  

______  I concur in the relief recommended by the Board. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

     

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 the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-011 
 
  
   

 

 

 
 

 

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.  It was docketed on November 24, 
2000, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated August 31, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

The applicant, a seaman (SN; pay grade E-3), asked the Board to correct his 

military record by removing an “alcohol incident” and negative “page 7” entry 
(Administrative Remarks; form CG-3307) dated                  .  

 
The applicant alleged that on the morning of              , he and a petty officer (       ) 

approached the gate of the pier where their cutter was docked to show their military 
identification cards to the guard.  He alleged that as he was putting his card away in his 
wallet, the guard noticed that he had a second military identification card and asked to see 
it.  The guard looked at it, told him he was not supposed to have two cards, and asked 
him to wait while he made a telephone call.  The applicant alleged that he “respectably 
cooperated.” 

 
The applicant alleged that the guard was apparently unable to contact whomever 

he was calling and began “taking an extended amount of time repeatedly making 
telephone calls.”            therefore “confronted the guard and asked him to return one of 
[the applicant’s] ID cards” so they could go to the cutter.  He alleged that the guard told            

. “No, the big dogs are going to have to come out here and bump heads about this 
because I am not authorized to make any decisions concerning [the applicant] having two 
ID cards.” 

 
The applicant alleged that           was “a little loud” in disagreeing with the guard, 

told him he was being unreasonable, and quarreled with the guard for a few minutes.  
Then, a car pulled up to the gate with         inside.1  The applicant alleged that the guard 
approached the car to check their identification; asked the driver,           , if he had 
consumed any alcohol and if there was any alcohol in the car; and returned to his booth to 
make another telephone call. 

 
The applicant alleged that           went to the cutter to “tell the quarter deck watch 
stander to notify the OOD [Officer of the Deck].”  The watch stander came and tried to 
resolve the problem, but the guard insisted that someone of higher rank was required, so 
the watch stander left to notify the OOD.  Soon thereafter, the applicant alleged, two 
vehicles arrived carrying four more guards.  The guards had          get out of his car and 
walk around to the back to take a sobriety test.   

 
The applicant alleged that he then “approached the guards [conducting the 

 
sobriety test] in a calm non-threatening manner to notify them that our superior was 
expected to arrive on scene shortly.”  He alleged that the guard standing closest to him 
took his hand and twisted it behind his back, walked him over to a bulkhead near the 
guard’s booth, and slammed him into it, saying “I am your superior, do you understand?  
I am your superior.”  The applicant alleged that the guard then handcuffed him and put 
him in one of the guards’ vehicles.  He alleged that he “did not resist arrest, was in no 
way whatsoever verbally abusive and remained calm, quiet and cooperative through this 
entire evolution to avoid further problems.”   
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted several written statements 
from crewmembers who were present at the scene and from his supervisor (see below).  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On December 13, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four years.  Upon completing boot camp, he was assigned to a cutter.  On             , his 
commanding officer signed and entered the following page 7 in his record: 

 
         On          , as you were entering the gate at the ... [pier], you were observed 
to  have  in  your  possession  2  military  ID’s.    Upon  further  investigation  it  was 
determined that you were intoxicated.  As the guard was asking you about your 
2 ID’s, you became belligerent and abusive towards the guard and attempted to 
run  away  during  the  investigation.    These  actions  brought  discredit  upon  the 
Coast Guard. 
 

                                                 
1  Because some of the persons involved had the same initials, those used in this decision are not 
necessarily the actual initials of the members. 

On           , an addiction prevention specialist at TRACEN           wrote a report to 

 
sign an acknowledgment. 
 
 
the applicant’s commanding officer.  He stated that the applicant met the criteria for 
alcohol dependence listed in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).  The specialist reported that the applicant “disclosed a 
maladaptive pattern of substance use that has resulted in significant distress and is 
indicated by his increased tolerance for alcohol, drinking larger amounts than intended, 
spending most of his off duty time drinking, and use despite awareness of related 
problems.”  He recommended that the applicant abstain from drinking alcohol until the 
evaluation was confirmed and he was referred to a treatment facility.  The specialist 
noted that since the applicant had only been in the Coast Guard for about four and one-
half months, he could be discharged for having a pre-existing disqualifying medical 
condition. 
 
 
the diagnosis and referred the applicant to attend a four-week outpatient program.  
According to the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), the applicant attended the 
program in            . 
 

On                  , the applicant was evaluated by a medical officer, who confirmed 

You were counseled on policies concerning alcohol use/abuse and the serious nature of 
this incident.  You will be screened by CAAC TRACEN            upon a date to be 
determined upon arrival to homeport.  You are to abstain from the use of alcohol until the 
results of the CAAC screening are known. 
 
This is considered your first alcohol incident for documentation purposes.  As per ref (a), 
any further alcohol incidents may result in your separation from the U.S. Coast Guard. 
 
The page 7 notes that the applicant was counseled about the matter but refused to 

SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS 

 
Statement of          Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
         stated that on the night in question, he was at the gate with the applicant 
when the guard noticed that the latter had two identification cards.  He stated that the 
applicant was very accommodating and complied with the guard’s requests.  He alleged 
that the guard was “getting unnecessarily angry, while [the applicant] remained calm, 
courteous and otherwise cooperative.”  Therefore,         left to get the OOD. 
 

      stated that when he drove up to the gate that night, he saw the applicant 

Statement of            Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
leaning against the wall next to the booth and asked him if he needed a ride to the cutter.  
Then the guard came up, checked their identification, and asked if he had been drinking.  
When          said “yes,” the guard told him to wait and went to the booth to telephone.  
While the guard was telephoning, the applicant came over to explain why he was waiting, 
but the guard ordered him back to the wall.  The applicant returned to the wall without 
saying anything. 
 

         stated that when two shore patrol vehicles arrived, the guards asked 
him to get out and walk behind his vehicle to take a sobriety test.  “When the test 
started,  [the  applicant]  walked  to  my  passenger  side  door  and  told  the  shore 
patrol officers that our superior is on the way.  From the point of view I was at 
the  guard  grabbed  [the  applicant’s]  arm  and  twisted  it  behind  his  back;  then 
forced him into the wall near the guard shack and placed him in handcuffs.  [The 
applicant] was then released to the OOD after about ten minutes.  At no time did 
I witness [him] resist the guards verbally or physically.” 

 

 

2 stated that when he pulled up to the gate in his truck, he and his passengers got 

Statement of         Submitted by the Coast Guard 
 
 
their identification cards out and showed them to the guard.  The guard then said 
something to the applicant and walked to the front of his truck.             asked the 
applicant if he needed a ride to the cutter.  The guard came back to the side of the truck, 
took             identification card, and asked if he had been drinking.  After            said 
“yes,” the guard asked him to step out of the truck.  When he did,            looked back and 
saw that three or four shore patrol vehicles had arrived.           was given a field sobriety 
test, which he failed, and was taken to the base nearby, where a breathalyzer test 
indicated that his blood alcohol content was 0.19.  He was cited for driving under the 
influence. 
 
Statement of       Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
leaning against a wall near the booth.         asked him if he wanted a ride to the cutter.  
Then the guard came to check their identification and asked         if he had been drinking.  
When          admitted that he had, the guard began to make some telephone calls.          
stated that while the guard was telephoning, someone in the vehicle asked the applicant 
why he was waiting there.  The applicant walked over to explain, but the guard saw him 
                                                 
2  This statement by        and the statements by                   that were submitted by the Coast Guard 
are marked as Enclosures 4, 5, 6, and 7 to an unidentified document.  The BCMR asked the Chief 
Counsel’s  office  to  submit  the  entire  document,  assuming  it  was  the  report  of  a  formal  or 
informal investigation into the incident.  The Chief Counsel’s office denied that there was ever a 
formal  investigation  of  or  investigative  report  on  the  incident  and  could  not  explain  why  the 
statements were marked as Enclosures 4 through 7. 

    stated that when the vehicle he was in stopped at the gate, he saw the applicant 

        stated that when more guards arrived in two vehicles, they took         to the 

         stated that when the vehicle he was in pulled up to the gate, he and the other 

and instructed him to return to the wall.            stated that the applicant calmly returned to 
the wall. 
 
 
rear of the vehicle to conduct a sobriety test.  “While          was at the back of the car [the 
applicant] walked towards the car and told [one of the guards] that our OOD was on his 
way.  The officer grabbed [him], put him against the wall, and placed him in handcuffs.  
[The applicant] did not show any type of aggression before or during the time I was there.  
[He] was released to [the OOD].”  
 
Statement of          Submitted by the Coast Guard 
 
 
passengers saw the guard talking to the applicant.  The guard walked over and asked 
them to “stand by.”  A few minutes later, the guard came back and asked         to step out.  
“For reasons unknown MP’s pulled up behind us.  We were never informed of what was 
going on until we were asked to get out of the car” and told to walk to the cutter since         
was under arrest. 
 
Statement of          Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
he needed a ride to the cutter.  Then the guard checked their identification and asked            
if he had been drinking.  When         said “yes,” the guard went to the booth to make a 
telephone call.  Someone asked the applicant why he was standing there, and he walked 
to the car to explain.  But when the guard ordered him back to the wall, he returned there 
without comment.   
 
 
           stated that when two vehicles arrived with more guards, they took           to 
the back of the vehicle and started talking.  The applicant “approached the car again and 
tried to tell the cop that our OOD was on the way.  The cop grabbed [the applicant] and 
forced him into the wall with his arm behind his back.  The cop then put [him] in 
handcuffs and placed him into the cop car.  [The applicant] was released to the OOD 
[and] did not try to do anything that would be considered violent.”   
 
Statement of          Submitted by the Coast Guard 
 
 
guard speaking to the applicant.  After they showed their identification cards to the guard, 
he told them to “hold on” and continued to talk with the applicant.  “After a minute or 
two,” the guard came back to the vehicle and asked           if he had been drinking.  The 
guard then asked             to get out and told           and the other passengers to “sit tight.”           
        stated that as soon as           got out, he noticed that there were three military police 
vehicles behind them. The military police gave           a sobriety test, and after about 20 
minutes, the guard told them to get out and walk to the cutter, since         was under 
arrest. 
 

         stated that when their vehicle came to the gate,           asked the applicant if 

          stated that when the vehicle he was in pulled up to the gate, he saw the 

          stated that, when the vehicle he was in pulled up to the gate, he saw the 

Statement of         Submitted by the Coast Guard 
 
 
guard speaking to the applicant.  He and the others in the vehicle showed the guard their 
identification cards.  The guard told them to “hold on” and told the applicant to stand 
against the wall.  The guard asked          if he had been drinking and then asked him to 
step out of the vehicle.  The guard told him and the other passengers to stay in the car.         
         stated that, as         was getting out, “2 cops and the MP’s pulled up.”  They took          
        behind the car to talk.  Then “[t]he police officers grabbed [the applicant] and threw 
him in the cop car,” and administered sobriety tests to       .  Afterwards, the guard told 
them to get out and walk to the cutter since           was under arrest. 
 

 

 

Statement of the Applicant’s Supervisor 

 
The applicant’s supervisor, a chief petty officer, wrote that the alcohol incident 

 
should be removed from the applicant’s record because it was entered “without full 
understanding of the facts.”   

Statement of the XO of the Cutter Submitted by the Coast Guard 
 
 
his investigation had revealed the following:   
 

The executive officer (XO) of the cutter, who investigated the incident, stated that 

In the early morning of             , [the applicant] ... arrived at the gate, [where a civilian 
security guard employed by the Navy was on duty]. ... [T]he gate guard asked [him] for 
his Armed Forced ID Card (AFID) for access to the pier.  [The applicant] opened his 
wallet and the gate guard observed that he possessed not one, but two (2) AFID cards.  
The gate guard immediately began to question [the applicant]  as to why he held two 
AFID cards and whether he had been drinking alcohol.   
 
At some point after detaining [the applicant] at the gate, [he] became belligerent with the 
gate guard.  The gate guard then instructed [him] to remain at the gate and then called the 
U.S. Navy Security patrol to come deal with [him].  At some point after calling for 
uniformed security, [the applicant] attempted to leave the gate area but was restrained.  
After the uniformed Navy patrol arrived, [he] was handcuffed and held [until the OOD] 
arrive to take him back to our vessel.  Subsequently, the security guard filled out a 
“violation citation” for possible violations of UCMJ Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly 
and False or unauthorized pass offense) and provided the citation to the [cutter’s] OOD. 
 
I subsequently investigated the incident and determined that [the applicant] 1) had been 
drinking alcohol; 2) did, in fact, possess two (2) AFIDs, and; 3) had been disorderly with 
the gate guard.  After consulting with the Commanding Officer, we determined [his] 
actions constituted an alcohol incident per Chapter 20, CG Personnel Manual and 
properly documented that matter in a CG-3307.  However, we decided against taking 
military justice action regarding the possible violations of UCMJ Article 134. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 1, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for lack of proof.  

The Chief Counsel alleged that on               , the applicant was “involved in an 

 
 
alcohol-related confrontation” with a civilian security guard at the gate after consuming 
alcohol on liberty.  He later received an adverse page 7 “for belligerent and abusive 
behavior toward a gate guard ... after consuming alcohol while in a liberty status.”  The 
Chief Counsel alleged that after this incident, his command conducted an investigation 
and determined that the event constituted an “alcohol incident.”  He alleged that the 
applicant was properly notified of this fact, referred for alcohol screening, and found to 
be alcohol dependent. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged none of the statements submitted by the applicant 
“prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant’s military superiors acted 
improperly or without a proper bases when they drafted and signed the disputed [page 
7].”  He alleged that all four of the fellow crewmembers who submitted statements for the 
applicant had been drinking alcohol that night.  He alleged that            was found to have 
a blood alcohol content of 0.19 that night and was arrested for driving under the 
influence.  The Chief Counsel also alleged that “there are enough inconsistencies 
between the statements provided in Applicant’s application and the statements taken from 
the same members by the command along with discrepancies among those statements 
(e.g. the number of patrol cars, where Applicant was standing) that it is highly likely that 
Applicant’s witnesses could have failed to see or misinterpreted the behavior which is not 
at issue.” 
 
 
sufficient evidence to overcome the strong presumption of regularity afforded his military 
superiors who determined that [he] was belligerent and abusive toward the civilian gate 
guard after he was properly detained for possessing two [identification cards].”  Arens v. 
United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 
804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s behavior had 
brought discredit upon the Coast Guard.  Therefore, he concluded that the applicant’s 
command “exercised reasonable judgment and discretion in determining that the               
confrontation was alcohol-related,” in accordance with Article 20.A.2.d. of the Personnel 
Manual, based on the investigator’s interviews with the guards and crewmembers.   
 
 
by crewmembers who were present at the scene and by the cutter’s executive officer 
(XO), who investigated the incident (see above).  The Chief Counsel also submitted a 
memorandum prepared by the CGPC, which stated that the applicant underwent 
screening on             , was found to be alcohol dependent, and was ordered to attend an 
outpatient treatment program.  CGPC stated that the applicant underwent treatment in            
      and that the declaration of the cutter’s executive officer dated            , “provided [the] 
basis for which the alcohol incident was determined.”   

The Chief Counsel submitted with his advisory opinion several statements made 

Therefore, the Chief Counsel argued that the applicant has “failed to provide 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was received. 

On May 2, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 

 

 
 
 

Any behavior in which the use or abuse of alcohol is determined to be a signifi-
cant or causative factor and which results in the member's loss of ability to per-
form  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. The member need not be found guilty at court martial, in a civilian 
court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the behavior to be con-
sidered an alcohol incident. However, the member must actually consume alco-
hol for an alcohol incident to have occurred. 

Article 20.B.2.b. states the following:  

APPLICABLE LAWS 

Article 20 of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) contains the 

 
 
regulations regarding alcohol abuse by Coast Guard members.  Article 20.B.2.g. states 
that “[t]he first time a member is involved in an alcohol incident, ... the commanding 
officer shall ensure this counseling is conducted; for enlisted members recorded on a CG-
3307 entry in the member's PDR; ... .  The member shall be counseled on Coast Guard 
policy on alcohol abuse contained in this article. ... Enlisted members will be advised an 
additional incident normally will result in discharge.  For enlisted members, a statement 
shall be made that the member has been involved in his or her first alcohol incident and a 
subsequent incident normally will result in separation action.” 
 
 
 

Article 20.A.2.d. defines an “alcohol incident” as  

The  definition  of  an  alcohol  incident  (Article  20.A.2.d.)  gives  commands  broad 
latitude in curbing intemperate alcohol use. However, the member must actually 
consume alcohol for an alcohol incident to have occurred. Simply being present 
where alcohol is consumed does not constitute an alcohol incident. The member 
may be counseled on appropriate behavior or may be held jointly responsible for 
any damage or untoward behavior associated with the group. Purchasing alco-
hol  for  use  by  minors  is  not  an  alcohol  incident,  but  does  represent  a  serious 
breach of discipline and subjects the member to civil or military (UCMJ) penal-
ties. 

Article 20.B.2.e. states that “[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, COMDTINST M6330.1 (series). 
The results of this alcohol screening shall be recorded and acknowledged on a CG-3307 
entry ... . The entry shall describe the facts of the incident or risk factors, the results of 
alcohol screening, the position and organization of the individual conducting the 
screening, and a statement of the treatment recommended, if any.”  Under Article 
20.A.2.b. and c., “alcohol dependence” is determined in a screening by competent 
medical authority based on the criteria in DSM-IV.  Under Article 20.B.2.l., any member 
found to have consumed alcohol after completing a treatment program must be 
discharged. 
 

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.”  Under Article 20.B.2.i., enlisted members must be discharged after a third 
incident. 
 
 
According to Article 20.B.2.n., “members diagnosed with alcohol abuse or 
alcohol dependence within six months of enlistment are not physically qualified for 
enlistment” and may be recommended for discharge under Article 12.B.16. of the 
Personnel Manual and Chapter 3.D. of the Medical Manual. 
 

 

 

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 over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from the 

petty officer,          , who arrived at the gate with him.           stated that the applicant 
remained “calm, courteous and otherwise cooperative” at the gate when he was stopped 
for having two military identification cards, but the guard became “unnecessarily angry.”  
Therefore,          left to get a superior officer from the ship to handle the situation.   

In support of his allegations, the applicant also submitted statements by 
three of four crewmembers who arrived at the gate in a truck sometime after the petty 
officer had departed.  Their statements indicate that the applicant was leaning against a 
wall, speaking calmly with the guard when they arrived, and that he remained calm while 
they were at the gate and cooperated with the guards. 

The Chief Counsel submitted statements from the four crewmembers in 
the truck, apparently written for the executive officer who investigated the incident.  He 
alleged that the discrepancies between these statements and those submitted by the 
applicant cast doubt on the validity of the latter.  

The application was timely. 
 

The applicant argued that the page 7 and “alcohol incident” should be 

removed from his record because he “remained calm, quiet and cooperative” throughout 
the incident at the pier gate on           .  He alleged that the page 7, which states he was 
“belligerent and abusive towards the guard and attempted to run away,” was false. 

Absent strong evidence to the contrary, government officials—including 
the shore patrol guards, the executive officer of the cutter who investigated the incident, 
and the commanding officer of the cutter who signed the page 7—are “presumed to have 
executed their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  Arens v. United States, 969 
F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

1. 

2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

The Board finds no significant discrepancies between the statements given 
to the investigator and those submitted by the applicant.  Although the statements include 
different details, they do not necessarily contradict each other.  The fact that some of the 
crewmembers remembered seeing three or four shore patrol vehicles behind them when 
the driver was asked to step out of the car does not mean that the new guards did not 
arrive in just two vehicles, as indicated in the statements submitted by the applicant.  
More importantly, there are no significant discrepancies concerning the demeanor and 
actions of the applicant.  None of the crewmembers’ statements to the investigator 
indicates that the applicant acted belligerently or uncooperatively toward the guards. 

The executive officer who investigated the incident for the commanding 

officer stated that his investigation led him to believe that the applicant had acted 
belligerently toward the guard and that he had “attempted to leave the gate area but was 
restrained.”  He also stated that the applicant had been drinking alcohol.  He did not 
explain how he came to these conclusions. 

The Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the descriptions of his actions in the disputed page 7 are false or at least 
grossly exaggerated.  The statements of        and the other crewmembers provide a 
coherent description of his calm, cooperative behavior while they were present.  
Although in theory, the belligerent behavior and attempted escape could have occurred 
after        left and before the truck arrived at the gate, the Board finds it highly unlikely 
that if the applicant had acted belligerently and attempted to escape, the crewmembers in 
the truck would have found him and the guard talking calmly by the guard’s booth upon 
their arrival.  The applicant would already have been “restrained” in some way, as the 
investigator indicated.  Yet the crewmembers’ statements indicate that the civilian gate 
guard had taken no physical action to restrain the applicant at all.  Moreover, upon the 
arrival of other guards, the gate guard had them conduct sobriety tests on          instead of 
dealing with the applicant, which would certainly have been his first priority if, in fact, 
the applicant had been acting belligerently and attempting to escape.  However, the 
evidence indicates that the applicant was not restrained in any way until a guard took 
offense when he mentioned that his “superior” was expected to arrive soon. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 
10. 

The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s command properly 

documented the incident as an “alcohol incident,” in accordance with Article 20.A.2.d. of 
the Personnel Manual, because the applicant had been drinking and his behavior brought 
discredit upon the Coast Guard.  Although the applicant may have been drinking, there is 
no evidence in the record as to how the investigator came to this conclusion.  Regardless 
of whether the applicant had been drinking, however, the Board finds that no “alcohol 
incident” occurred because the preponderance of the evidence in the record proves that 
his behavior at the gate did not bring discredit upon the Coast Guard, result in a loss of 
ability to perform his assigned duties, or violate the UCMJ.3 

                                                 
3  Although the applicant had two military identification cards that night, his command declined 
to  prosecute  him  for  that  fact.    Therefore,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the 

As a result of the incident at the gate, the applicant was screened for 

substance abuse.  On the basis of his own admissions, he was found to be alcohol 
dependent and treated in an outpatient program.  He did not allege or submit any 
evidence indicating that the diagnosis was erroneous.  Therefore, whether or not he has 
an “alcohol incident” in his record, the applicant remains subject to immediate discharge 
under Article 20.B.2.l. of the Personnel Manual if at any time in the future, he is 
discovered to have consumed alcohol. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted. 

 
11. 

12. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                                                                                                                 
Board  assumes  that  there  was  a  reasonable,  exculpatory  explanation  for  his  possessing  both 
cards. 

ORDER 

 

The application of                      , USCG, for correction of his military record is 

granted.   

 
The page 7 (CG-3307) in his record dated                , documenting the events of               
, shall be removed from his record.  In addition, no “alcohol incident” shall be 

 

 
 

 
David H. Kasminoff 

considered to have occurred for him on that day, and any other documentation of an 
“alcohol incident” on that day shall be removed from his record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf 

 
 

 

 
Charles Medalen