DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No. 2003-048 

  FINAL DECISION 

This  final  decision,  dated  November  20,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 
ULMER,  Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.  The  application  was  docketed  on  March  7, 
2003, upon the Board's receipt of the applicant's complete application for correction of 
his military record. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he would be eligible 
to  join  another  service.  He  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  under  honorable 
conditions  (general  discharge)  by  reason  of  fraudulent  enlistment  due  to  drug  abuse.  
He  was  assigned  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  and  a  JDT 
(fraudulent  entry  into  military  service,  drug  abuse)  separation  code.    Therefore,  the 
Board interprets the applicant's request as one for an upgrade of his general discharge, 
for removal of fraudulent enlistment as the reason for his discharge, and for an upgrade 
of his RE-4 reenlistment code.  
 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATION 

 

The  applicant  did  not  allege  a  specific  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  his 

discharge, but he offered the following statement in support of his application: 
 

I believe I deserve another chance to enter into military service.  I am an 
American and wish to be apart of protecting my country!  I did not realize 
that I would not be able to join another service. I would [have] not signed 
release papers if I had.  I am not a drug abuser.  I made a misjudgment 
that cost me my career.  . . .  
 
I  also  would  like  to  state  for  the  record  [that]  your  wording  of 
involvement  with  drugs  is  inappropriate.    I  was  involved  with  trying 
marijuana one time.  I believe you should change that.  Also, I had passed 

the first drug test & I know I should have used my brain. I regret what has 
happened & with everything going on in the world you should respect me 
for wanting to help my country & protect her.    
 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on November 13, 200x.  At that time, 
he signed an administrative remarks (page 7) page, which advised him of the following: 
 

I have been advised that the illegal use or possession of drugs constitutes 
a serious breach of discipline [,] which will not be tolerated.  Also, illegal 
drug  use  or  possession  is  counter  to  esprit  de  corps  &  mission 
performance  and  jeopardizes  safety.    I  understand  that  I  am  not  to  use, 
possess,  or  distribute  illegal  drugs,  drug  paraphernalia  or  hemp  oil 
products.  I also understand that upon reporting to recruit training, I will 
be tested by urinalysis for the presence of illegal drugs.  If my urine test 
detects  the  presence  of  illegal  drugs  I  may  be  subject  to  discharge  and 
receive a general discharge. I hereby affirm that I am drug free and ready 
for recruit training     

 
 
On his enlistment contract date November, 13, 200x, the applicant denied that he 
had "ever tried, used . . . any narcotic . . . " The applicant also verified by his signature 
that the information contained on the enlistment documents was correct to the best of 
his  knowledge.    In  this  same  paragraph  the  applicant  was  warned  that  "if  any  of  the 
information was knowingly false or incorrect, [he] could be tried in a civilian or military 
court and could receive a less than honorable discharge which could affect [his] future 
employment opportunities."   
 
 
On  December  6,  200x,  the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  informed  the 
applicant that he had initiated action to discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard 
with a general discharge under honorable conditions due to drugs.  The CO stated that 
on November 14, 200x, the applicant gave a urine specimen that tested positive for the 
presence of THC (marijuana metabolite), a controlled substance.  The CO advised the 
applicant that he could submit a statement in his own behalf and consult with a lawyer 
because a general discharge was contemplated. 
 
 
On December 6, 200x, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed 
discharge, did not object to being discharged, waived his right to submit a statement in 
his  own  behalf,  acknowledged  that  he  had  been  provided  with  the  opportunity  to 
consult with a lawyer but waived his right to do so, and stated that he understood that 
a general discharge could cause him to suffer some prejudice in his civilian life. 
 

The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on December 14, 200x.  He 

had served one month and two days on active duty. 
 

Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On July 18, 2003, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief Counsel 
of  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the 
applicant's request for relief.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated the Coast Guard did not commit an error or injustice in 
discharging the applicant from the service.  He stated that the applicant had no absolute 
right to remain in the service until the end of his enlistment period.  Giglio v. United 
States,  17  Cl.  Ct.  160,  166  (1989).    Therefore,  as  a  member  of  the  armed  forces,  the 
applicant could be administratively discharged prior to that time. He further stated that 
the applicant bears the burden of proving his case and that absent strong evidence to 
the  contrary,  government  officials  are  presumed  to  have  carried  out  their  duties 
correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  See, Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 
(D.C. Circuit 1992).   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  even  with  the  presumption  of  regularity,  the 
available  evidence  including  the  applicant's  enlistment  documents  and  associated 
administrative remarks (page 7s) dated November 13, 200x, show that the applicant was 
aware  of  the  possible  consequences  of  falsifying  his  enlistment  application,  which 
included a discharge under honorable conditions.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  was  the  only 
appropriate code under the circumstances.  A major reason why the code should remain 
unchanged,  according  to  the  Chief  Counsel,  is  the  need  of  the  armed  forces  for  their 
personnel  to  remain  free  of  illegal  substances.    The  Chief  Counsel  further  stated  as 
follows: 
 

Applicant  does  not  deny  using  illegal  drugs.    Rather,  Applicant  simply 
characterizes  the  falsification  of  his  enlistment  application  as  a  simple 
"misjudgment"  and  asserts  that  he  is  not  a  "drug  abuser."    .  .  .    The 
unsupported  contentions  of  an  individual,  who  admittedly  falsified  an 
official government document under pain of criminal proceedings, should 
not provide grounds to potentially undermine the integrity of the military 
by affording Applicant the opportunity to reenlist.   

On July 21, 2003, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant for 

  
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
any response that he desired to make.  He did not submit a response. 
 
 
Discharge Review Board  (DRB) Proceeding  
 
 
Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  exhausted  his 
administrative remedies by filing an application with the DRB.  On March 26, 200x, the 

DRB refused to upgrade the applicant's general discharge under honorable conditions, 
the  reason  for  his  discharge,  or  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    In  denying  relief  to  the 
applicant, the DRB stated the following: 
 

The Board carefully examined the applicant's record of service during the 
period  of  enlistment  under  review.    The  board  discussed  the  applicant 
admitted to using marijuana prior to going to the Coast Guard recruiter, 
and the fact the applicant acknowledged on a form 3307 (page 7) that he 
understood  the  use  of  drugs  would  result  in  a  general  discharge.  
Members of the Board read the letters sent on behalf of the applicant.  The 
positive test is a defacto proof of drug use, regardless of the type of test 
administered  at  MEPS  (Military  Enlistment  Processing  Station)  and  at 
recruit training.   

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  12.B.18.b.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  the  Commander,  Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  to  discharge  a  member  by  reason  of  misconduct 
for "[p]rocuring a fraudulent enlistment, induction, or period of active service through 
any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment, which, if known at 
the time, might have resulted in rejection." 
 
 
 

Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

Involvement with Drugs.  Any member involved in a drug incident or the 
illegal,  wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction 
onto military installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation 
from  the  Coast  Guard  with  no  higher  than  a  general  discharge.  
Commanding  Officer,  Training  Center  Cape  May  is  delegated  final 
discharge  authority  for  members  assigned  to  recruit  training  under  this 
Article  in  specific  cases  of  drug  use  before  enlistment  (as  evidenced  by  a 
positive urinalysis shortly after training).  New inductees shall sign a CG-
3307 entry acknowledging the presence of drugs in their bodies is grounds 
for a general discharge for misconduct. 

 
Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  section  two,  authorizes  only 
 
the  assignment  of  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  for  the  JDT  separation  code.    The  SPD 
Handbook  states  that  the  JDT  separation  code  is  appropriate  when  there  is  an 
"[i]nvoluntary discharge directed by established directive (no board entitlement) when 
a  member  procured  fraudulent  enlistment,  induction  or  period  of  military  service 
through  deliberate  material  misrepresentation,  omission  or  concealment  of  drug 
use/abuse." 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  submissions  and  military  record,  submission  of  the  Coast  Guard,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
10, United States Code. The application was timely. 
   

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

2.  The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  in  discharging  him  with  a  general  discharge  under 
honorable  conditions  because  of  fraudulent  enlistment  due  to  concealment  of  drug 
use/abuse.  The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  November  13,  200x.    On 
November 14, 200x, upon entering recruit training, the applicant gave a urine specimen 
that subsequently tested positive for illegal drugs.  

 
3.    On  November  13,  200x,  the  applicant  had  affirmed  on  his  enlistment 
documentation  that  he  was  drug  free  and  ready  for  recruit  training.    However,  he 
admitted in his statement to the Board that he had used marijuana, although he claimed 
it was only once.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant's statement that he 
was drug free and ready for recruit training was false and the applicant probably knew 
it was false at the time he signed the affirmation. The Coast Guard did not commit an 
error  by  discharging  the  applicant  due  to  fraudulent  enlistment,  drug  use.  The 
applicant was warned at the time of his enlistment that he would be discharged with a 
general discharge under honorable conditions if his urine tested positive for drug use 
upon entering recruit training. 
 

4.    In  addition,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant's  discharge 
constituted  an  injustice.  The  applicant's  explanation  that  he  tried  marijuana  only  one 
time and that he should be respected for wanting to help his country does not persuade 
the  Board  that  the  applicant's  discharge  for  fraudulent  enlistment  due  to  drug 
use/abuse  was  an  injustice.    The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  was  warned  that  his 
urine would be tested for illegal drugs upon entering recruit training and that he would 
be discharged if his urine tested positive for illegal drugs.  
 
 
5.  The  general  discharge  for  fraudulent  enlistment  due  to  drug  use/abuse  was 
assigned in accordance with regulations.  The SPD handbook authorizes the assignment 
of only an RE-4 reenlistment code with the JDT (fraudulent entry into military service, 
drug use/abuse) separation code. 
 
 
6.    The  applicant  suggested  that  Article  12.B.18.b.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
does not apply to him because he was not involved with drugs, allegedly having only 
tried marijuana one time.  The phrase "Involvement with Drugs" is the topic heading of 
Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual, which prohibits the use of drugs.  It does 
not contain an exception for one-time use, even if such could be proven.  
 
 
relief should be denied.  

7.  The  applicant  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  case.  Accordingly, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Patricia V. Kingcade 

 

 

 
 James G. Parks 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied.