DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2003-098 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
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 June 16, 2003, 
upon receipt of the completed application, including the military records. 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 18, 2004, is signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  upgrading  his 
1971 “U.D.” discharge to at least a “general” discharge or by removing him “from all 
records.”  

 
The applicant alleged that his military record was unjust because  he was not a 
high school graduate when he enlisted.  He alleged that he was told that he would be 
given  a  General  Educational  Development  (GED)  test  after  he  enlisted  but  was  never 
given  one.    He  alleged  that  you  had  to  be  a  high  school  graduate  to  be  in  the  Coast 
Guard. 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the error in 1971.  He argued that it is in 
the  interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  and 
consider his application “[b]ecause the Coast Guard didn’t take non high school [grad-
uates] without a GED or etc.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On May 18, 1970, at the age of 19, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for 
four years.  Upon enlistment, he was advised in accordance with Article 137 of the Uni-
form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).1  Prior to enlistment, on May 1, 1970, the appli-
cant had signed a medical history indicating that he had never had a drug or narcotic 
habit.  In addition, because of a conviction for burglary in 1966, the applicant’s recruiter 
had  to  seek  a  waiver  from  the  Personnel  Procurement  Branch  to  enlist  him.    On  the 
waiver application (form CGHQ-4052), the recruiter noted the applicant’s lack of a high 
school diploma and the fact that he had scored in the 46 percentile on an Armed Forces 
Qualification Test as a “remark” but not as a potentially disqualifying fact that required 
waiver.  The waiver was granted because the conviction had occurred when the appli-
cant was 15 years old. 

 
Upon enlistment, the applicant was sent to boot camp.  On June 8, 1970, he went 
AWOL.  He was apprehended near his home on June 28, 1970.  He was awarded non-
judicial punishment (NJP) and sentenced to 15 days of correctional custody and a $25.00 
fine.  On July 6, 1970, he was again advised about the UCMJ in accordance with Article 
137. 

 
The  applicant  completed  training  on  September  4,  1970,  and  advanced  from 
seaman recruit to seaman apprentice (SA).  From October 1 to 11, 1970, he again went 
AWOL.  After his apprehension, he received transfer orders to a cutter.  He was award-
ed NJP with a sentence of 45 days’ restriction to the cutter and 30 days of extra duty. 

 
On October 19, 1970, the executive officer (XO) of the cutter referred the appli-
cant for a psychiatric evaluation because of his attitude and suspected drug abuse.  The 
applicant told the doctor that he had enlisted to please his father and that he wanted to 
get out of the Coast Guard.  He was diagnosed with an “inadequate personality.” 

 
On October 26, 1970, the applicant was counseled by the XO about his “apathy, 

defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively.” 

 
On  October  29,  1970,  the  applicant  admitted  to  his  doctor  that  he  used  heroin, 

marijuana, “speed,” and other illegal drugs. 

 
In November 1970, the applicant was granted 17 days of leave to visit his home. 
 
On January 8, 1971, the XO referred the applicant for another psychiatric exami-
nation pursuant to a “possible administrative discharge.”  The doctor reported that the 
                                                 
1 Article 137 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 937) requires the military services to explain parts of the UCMJ, 
including the punitive articles regarding drug abuse, at the time of enlistment.   
  

applicant’s drug abuse and poor motivation continued and that the diagnosis was still 
“inadequate personality.” 

 
On  January  26,  1971,  the  applicant  went  AWOL  for  one  day  because  he  was 
“stoned  on  drugs.”    He  was  awarded  NJP  with  a  sentence  of  7  days’  restriction  and 
extra duty. 

 
On January 27, 1971, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) advised him that 
he was going to recommend the applicant for an administrative, undesirable discharge 
by reason of unfitness, in accordance with Article 12-B-14 of the Personnel Manual (CG-
207), because of his admitted regular use of illegal drugs that caused him to have black-
outs and flashbacks.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notice. 

 
On January 28, 1971, the applicant was assigned counsel and advised that he had 
a right to be represented by counsel before an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB).  
The applicant signed a statement acknowledging this information and waiving his right 
to  an  ADB.    He  also  acknowledged  that  his  undesirable  discharge  would  be  “under 
other than honorable conditions,” which would deprive him of his rights as a veteran 
and might prejudice him in civilian life. 

 
On February 1, 1971, the applicant was advised of his right to remain silent, of 
his right to an attorney, of his right to make a statement on his own behalf, and of the 
fact  that  any  statement  he  made  could  be  used  against  him.    The  applicant  signed  a 
statement in which he admitted that since age 15 he had used marijuana “as often as [he 
had] access to it,” which on average amounted to “at least one ‘joint’ or cigarette a day.”  
He stated that he had used LSD at least 200 times and that he had purchased drugs with 
the profits that he made from selling them.  He named eight friends and relatives with 
whom he had used marijuana, LSD, and intravenous crystal methadrine (“speed”).  He 
also named three fellow crewmates with whom he had used, variously, marijuana, LSD, 
“speed,” several types of barbituates, heroin, mescaline, “and a lot of others.”  He stated 
that each month he would buy a supply of drugs with his Coast Guard pay, save what 
he wanted for his personal use, and sell the rest.  He concluded that “I enjoy my total 
drug experiences and have no motivation to continue my services in the Coast Guard.” 

 
On February 2, 1971, the applicant’s CO recommended to the Commandant that 
the  applicant  be  awarded  an  undesirable  discharge  for  unfitness  because  of  his  drug 
habit and poor performance.  The CO noted that the applicant “expresses a continuing 
desire to use drugs and does not desire assistance in breaking his habit.”  The CO also 
noted that the applicant had been awarded NJP three times and had been counseled in 
accordance with Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual on October 26, 1970. 

 
On  February  5,  1971,  the  XO  noted  that  he  had  explained  to  the  applicant  the 
provisions of the UCMJ, in accordance with Article 137 of the UCMJ, and the types of 

discharges  and  related  matters,  in  accordance  with  Article  12-B-29  of  the  Personnel 
Manual. 

 
On April 1, 1971, the Commandant ordered that the applicant be separated with 
an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel 
Manual. 

 
On  April  30,  1971,  the  applicant  was  found  physically  fit  for  discharge  by  an 
examining physician.  The applicant agreed with the finding.  On the same day, he was 
discharged  “under  other  than  honorable  conditions”  with  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code 
(not eligible for reenlistment).   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 30, 2002, the Judge Advocate General submitted an advisory opinion 
in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  because  of  the  application’s 
untimeliness and lack of merit. 
 
 
Regarding  the  untimeliness  of  the  application,  the  Judge  Advocate  General 
argued that the applicant had provided no explanation for his long delay in applying to 
the Board.  He also pointed out that a brief review of the applicant’s record indicates 
that he was properly discharged after three unauthorized absences and after confessing 
to drug use and distribution.  The Judge Advocate General argued that the applicant’s 
allegation that someone in the Coast Guard promised to administer a GED to him and 
never did does not rebut the presumption that his military records are correct.   
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 3, 2003, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the advisory opin-

 
 
ion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under  Article  12-B-12  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1971  (CG-207),  the 
Commandant could order the undesirable discharge of an enlisted member by reason of 
unfitness for “[d]rug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming 
narcotics or marijuana.” 
 

Article 12-B-14 of the Personnel Manual provided that when an undesirable dis-
charge  was  contemplated,  the  enlisted  member  had  a  right  to  notice  of  the  proposed 
action, the basis for the discharge, the potential loss of veterans’ benefits and prejudice 
in civilian life.  He also had a right to counsel, a right to an ADB (unless he waived the 
right), and a right to submit a statement on his own behalf.  
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552. 
  

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.2    The  applicant  received  his  dis-
charge in 1971.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

The applicant did not explain why he waited more than 30 years to apply 

 
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year stat-
ute 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 cur-
sory review of the merits of the case and consider the reasons for the delay.3   
 
 
to the Board for the requested correction. 
 
 
The  Board’s  review  of  the  applicant’s  case  reveals  a  complete  lack  of 
merit.  The record indicates that the applicant was properly enlisted in the Coast Guard.  
His  recruiter  informed  Headquarters  about  the  applicant’s  lack  of  a  high  school 
diploma and was officially authorized to enlist him anyway.  The applicant submitted 
no proof that he was promised a GED test or that he was denied one.  Moreover, he has 
failed to persuade the Board that such an allegation, if true, would warrant an upgrade 
of  his  discharge  or  a  purge  of  his  military  record.    Whether  or  not  the  applicant  was 
promised and given a GED test is irrelevant to whether the character of his discharge 
was correct. 
 
 
The  Board’s  review  of  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  pro-
vided all due process and discharged in accordance with the regulations in Articles 12-
B-12  and  12-B-14  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (CG-207).    The  Board  finds  no  evidence  of 
error or injustice in the applicant’s record. 
 
 
Accordingly, the Board will not waive the three-year statute of limitations, 
and  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  based  on  its  untimeliness  and  lack  of 
merit. 
 
 
 
 
 

6. 

7. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
2 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 
3 Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.D.C. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen