DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2003-100 
 
 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Ulmer, Chair: 
 

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

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  June  16, 
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 upgrade his RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment) 
reenlistment code to an RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor).  
He  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  under  honorable  conditions  (general  dis-
charge) 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.  He had served 18 days on active duty at 
the time of his discharge. 
 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATION 

 

The applicant alleged that his record is unjust because it is preventing him from 
reenlisting in the Coast Guard based on a mistake that he made when he was 19 years 
old and one that he has regretted ever since.  He further stated the following: 

 

I am 21 years old now and have matured greatly.  I work full time 
and attend college in the evening.  I feel it would be unjust to punish me a 
lifetime  for  one  stupid  mistake.    I  understand  that  the  Coast  Guard 

performs law enforcement duties pertaining to drugs, probably more than 
most new recruits. I understand what I had and what I lost. 

 

The applicant alleged that at the time of his discharge he was told that he "could 
re-apply after a year if [he] submitted character references and a letter of apology."  He 
offered his statement that he has passed three private drug tests over the past two years 
as  evidence  that  he  will  not  repeat  this  mistake  again.    He  stated  that  he  sought  the 
assistance of his congressman to show that he was serious and very sorry for what he 
had done.  
 

The  applicant  submitted  several  character  references  from  his  current  and 

previous employers recommending him for reenlistment in the Coast Guard. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  April  10,  2001.    On  this  date,  he 
completed DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing).  In answer to the question in 
block  26  on  this  document,  the  applicant  admitted  that  he  had  "tried  [and]  used  .  .  . 
narcotic . . . ."  In very small print at the top of block 26, it is noted that a "yes" answer 
requires an explanation in section VI of the document.  Section VI was not located next 
to question 26, but instead was located many questions later at the bottom of the next 
page.  The applicant did not provide an explanation in section VI on the bottom of the 
next page, and it would be speculation to guess whether the omission was intentional 
or  an inadvertent mistake.   
 

On April 10, 2001, the applicant verified by his signature in block 27 of the DD 
Form 1966 that the information he provided on the document 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  the  same  date,  the  recruiter  signed  a  certification 
witnessing  the  applicant's  signature  and  stated  that  he  had  verified  the  data  in  the 
documents.  The recruiter further acknowledged that he could be tried by court-martial 
if he effected or caused the enlistment of anyone known to the recruiter to be ineligible 
for enlistment. 

 
Despite the fact that Section VI had been left blank even though a “yes” answer 
in block 26 required that section VI be completed, the applicant's recruiter nevertheless 
also certified on April 10, 2001, that he had "reviewed all information contained in the 
document  and  to  the  best  of  his  judgment  and  belief,  the  applicant  fulfilled  all  legal 
policy  requirements  for  enlistment."    He  further  certified  that  “service  regulations 
governing such enlistment have been strictly complied [with].”   

 

At  the  time  of  his  enlistment,  the  applicant  signed  an  administrative  remarks 
(page 7) page dated April 10, 2001, witnessed by his recruiter, advising the applicant 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  April  10,  2001,  the  applicant  reported  to  recruit  training,  and  on  April  11, 
2001,  a  sample  of  his  urine  was  collected  for  drug  testing.    On  April  19,  2001,  the 
laboratory  reported  that  the  applicant's  urine  specimen  had  tested  positive  for 
marijuana. 
 
 
On  April  27,  2001,  a  page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant's  record  documenting 
that he had been identified as a user of an illegal substance, as evidenced by a positive 
urinalysis test that was conducted upon his arrival at recruit training.  
 
 
On  April  27,  2001,  the  applicant  signed  a  page  7  entry  acknowledging  the 
following:    "I  have  read  and  been  counseled  on  the  contents  of  Article  12.B.53., 
Personnel  Manual  .  .  .  about  my  rights  on  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard.    I 
understand  my  rights  as  described  there  and  have  had  all  my  questions  answered."  
(Article  12.B.53  of  the  Personnel  Manual  advises  the  applicant  about  such  matters  as 
leave  in  conjunction  with  separation,  reenlistment  information  (or  the  lack  thereof), 
retaining  or  surrendering  uniforms,  veterans’  rights,  medical  benefits,  the  Discharge 
Review Board and BCMR, and selective service registration.)   
 

 

The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on April 27, 2001.  He had 

served 18 days on active duty. 
 
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 December 9, 2002, 
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  thoroughly  reviewed  applicant's  personnel  record,  medical 
record, letters of recommendation, and listened to [a] personal statement 
given  by  the  applicant  and  [his]  father.    Applicant  tested  positive  for 
marijuana  during  in  processing  at  Cape  May.    Applicant  and  Board 
members felt that the discharge was carried out in accordance with Coast 
Guard policy, and was properly documented.     

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  30,  2003,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Judge 
Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard.  He recommended that the Board deny 
the applicant's request for relief.   
 
 
TJAG  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  commit  an  error  or  injustice  in 
discharging the applicant from the service.  In this regard, he noted that the applicant 
did  not  challenge  the  accuracy  of  the  drug  test  administered  to  him  during  recruit 
training, but instead argued that the RE-4 reenlistment code was inappropriately severe.  
He argued that given the Coast Guard's prominent role in enforcing the nation's drug 
laws,  the  Coast  Guard  policy  on  separating  drug  abusers  and  assigning  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code makes sense.   
 

TJAG 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).    He  stated  that  the  applicant's  record 
shows  that  he  "lied  about  his  drug  use  prior  to  entering  recruit  training  and  was 
appropriately separated once his illegal conduct came to light." 

 
A  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC)  was  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion.    TJAG  adopted  the 
contents  of  the  memorandum  and  asked  the  Board  to  accept  them  as  part  of  the 
advisory opinion.  CGPC stated that the applicant had been afforded full due process.  
He further stated the following: 

 
I  concur  with  the  previous  decision  of  the  Commandant  that  the 
Applicant's  discharge  shall  stand  as  issued  .  .  .  I  find  no  evidence  to 
conclude  that  the  applicant's  discharge  for  misconduct  was  in  error  or 
unjust.  The record further indicates that the urinalysis conducted on April 
11,  2001,  was  appropriately  carried  out.    The  record  also  indicates  the 
applicant was counseled extensively concerning Coast Guard policies on 
the  use  of  illicit  substances  and  the  consequences  for  violating  them.  

These policies are in keeping with the Coast Guard's law enforcement and 
drug interdiction missions. 

 
the  entire  enlistment  process,  applicant  was  specifically 
During 
encouraged to be truthful in completing all documents, and was advised 
that  admitting  occasional  drug  use  would  not  disqualify  him  for 
enlistment.    Unfortunately,  the  applicant  chose  to  make  false  official 
statements about his drug use . . . which were confirmed by the result of 
the urinalysis conducted in basic training.  His enlistment was fraudulent, 
and he was separated for this reason.   

  

  

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On December 14, 2003, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of 
 
the  Coast  Guard  prepared  on  his  behalf  by  his  father.    His  father  noted  that  the 
applicant joined the Coast Guard at the age of 19.  He stated that he disagreed with the 
advisory  opinion  because  it  is  unforgiving  for  a  minor  offense.    He  argued  that  the 
Chief  Counsel's  position  does  not  allow  for  the  correction  of  behavior  or  for  second 
chances.  He further stated the following: 
 

[The applicant] made  a stupid mistake at a young age.  He knows it.  It 
seems to be a mistake that many teenagers make.  It is our jobs as adults to 
weigh the punishment, that it not be so severe that one's hopes are dashed 
forever.  Our former president admitted to smoking marijuana.  I am not 
equating politicians to military personnel, but if they were not allowed to 
run  for  public  office,  this  country  would  have  lost  out  on  some  good 
leaders.    I  am  asking  that  someone  in  the  Coast  Guard  not  be  afraid  to 
think outside the box, that not every case be rubber stamped because no 
one  wants  to  make  a  decision  that  may  require  further  explanation  or 
paperwork.    A  [Coast  Guard  officer]  in  Washington  at  the  Discharge 
Review  Board  Meeting  told  me  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  reviewing  its 
policy towards minor offenses in order to fall in line with the policies of 
the other military branches.   
 
While [the applicant] acknowledges his transgression and deeply regrets 
it,  he  has  also  matured  greatly  in  the  past  two  and  a  half  years.    [The 
Secretary]  said  on  November  14,  that  the  main  function  of  the  Coast 
Guard  is  now  Homeland  Security.    I  am  asking  that  the  Board  give  a 
second chance to a young man who made a mistake at 19, who is now 22 
and wants to serve his country on the home front.   

  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Coast Guard Personnel Manual 

 

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.    Com-
manding  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. 

 
 
Article 12.B.18.e. states that a member with fewer than eight years of service who 
is  recommended  for  an  honorable  or  general  discharge  due  to  misconduct  shall  be 
informed  of  the reason  for  the  discharge,  afforded  the opportunity  to  make  a  written 
statement, and afforded the opportunity to consult with a lawyer.   
 
 
Article 12.B.20 of the Personnel Manual defines an uncharacterized discharge as 
a separation for members who have fewer than 180 days of active service on the date of 
discharge and who demonstrate poor proficiency, conduct, aptitude or unsuitability for 
further service during the period from enlistment through recruit training.   
 
 
awarded an uncharacterized discharge. Only a DD-214 will be issued." 
 

Article  12.B.20.c.  states,  "No  discharge  certificate  will  be  issued  to  a  member 

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  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  reenlistment  code  from  RE-4 
(not eligible for reenlistment) to RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment, except for disqualifying 
factor).  He was discharged with a general discharge due to fraudulent enlistment drug 
use/abuse,  for  which  only  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  is  authorized.    Therefore,  the 
Board  must  review  the  basis  on  which  the  applicant  was  discharged  to  determine 
whether  an  error  or  injustice  exists  with  respect  to  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    The 
applicant’s own arguments were not persuasive.  However, he was not represented by 
an  attorney,  and  the  Board’s  own  review  of  the  record  has  revealed  a  clear  basis  for 
granting partial relief, as discussed below.   
 

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 10, 2001.  On enlistment 
documents of the same date, he answered truthfully, admitting on Form 1966 that he 
had used drugs including marijuana.  Pursuant to the instructions on this form, a "yes" 
answer  to  the  question  “Have  you  ever  tried  or  used  [illegal  drugs]?”  required  an 
explanation  in  section  VI  on  the  bottom  of  the  next  page.    However,  the  applicant 
provided no explanation on the enlistment document, and the recruiter who reviewed it 
demanded none, even though the instructions required such an explanation.  The Board 
finds that it was the recruiter’s responsibility to ensure that either an explanation was 
given  in  section  VI,  or  the  recruiter  should  have  made  a  notation  in  section  VI  and 
notified the Recruiting Command that the applicant refused to complete section VI, in 
which case he would not have been enlisted.   

 
4.  On April 10, 2001, the applicant also signed a page 7 advising him that drug 
use was against Coast Guard policy, that upon reporting to recruit training he would be 
tested by urinalysis for drug use, and that if his urine tested positive for drugs he would 
probably  be  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  general  discharge.    He  further 
acknowledged  on  this  page  7  that  he  was  “drug  free  and  ready  for  recruit  training.” 
CGPC indicated that the portion of the entry that reads “I am drug free and ready for 
recruit training” is the only basis upon which the Coast Guard could have concluded 
that the applicant's enlistment into the Coast Guard was fraudulent.  

 
5.  On April 10, 2001, the applicant reported to recruit training.  The next day on 
April  11,  2001,  he  provided  a  urine  specimen  that  subsequently  tested  positive  for 
marijuana on April 19, 2001.  On April 27, 2001, the applicant was discharged from the 
Coast  Guard  with  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  by  reason  of 
fraudulent enlistment drug use/abuse, with an RE-4 reenlistment code.   

 
6. TJAG argued that the Coast Guard is entitled to the presumption of regularity 
in this case because the applicant has produced no evidence that Coast Guard officials 
failed to carry out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith by discharging the 
applicant due to fraudulent enlistment.  See, Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 
(D.C. Circuit 1992).  However, for the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the 
Coast Guard’s presumption of regularity in this case is rebutted by the fact that there is 

insufficient  evidence  in  the  record  to  conclude  that  the  applicant  "procur[ed]  a 
fraudulent  enlistment  .  .  .  through  deliberate  material  misrepresentation,  omission,  or 
concealment, which if known at the time, might have resulted in rejection."  
 

7.  On Form 1966, the applicant answered "yes" to the question in block 26, which 
asked  if  he  had  ever  tried  or  used  any  narcotic  or  mind-altering  substance.    The 
instructions for completing this question required an explanation to a "yes" answer on 
the bottom of the next page.  Despite the instruction, the recruiter did not require the 
applicant  to  explain  his  "yes"  answer. 
  Moreover,  the  recruiter  signed  an 
acknowledgement  on  the  form  that  he  had  verified  the  data  in  the  documents  as 
required by his directives.  Even more importantly, he certified that he had reviewed all 
information contained in the document, and to the best of his judgment and belief the 
applicant  fulfilled  the  requirements  for  enlistment.    The  very  fact  that  there  is  no 
explanation  of  the  applicant's  pre-service  drug  use  on  Form  1966  as  required  by  the 
instruction is evidence that the recruiter failed in his duty to obtain all required data.  
Accordingly,  the  applicant  was  enlisted  into  the  Coast  Guard  based  on  incomplete 
information, in direct violation of Article 6.A.2. of the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, 
which states that "[o]missions or incomplete answers to questions will not be accepted." 
Since the recruiter failed either to make the applicant complete section VI or to explain 
in section VI that the applicant refused to complete section VI, there is no evidence that 
the applicant committed a fraud upon the Coast Guard when the applicant said he was 
“drug free.”  Rather, not realizing that THC remains in the blood stream for days and 
even weeks after exposure, the applicant could have reasonably believed at the time he 
signed the application that he was in fact “drug free.” 

  
8.  Fraudulent  enlistment  is  defined  as  procuring  one's  own  enlistment  in  the 
armed  forces  by  a  knowingly  false  representation  or  deliberate  concealment  as  to 
qualifications  for  the  enlistment  and  by  receiving  pay  or  allowances  thereunder.    See 
United  States  v.  Nazario,  56  M.J.  572  (CAA  2001);  see  also  Article  12.B.18.b.2.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.    The  applicant  did  not  conceal  his  drug  use;  he  admitted  to  it.   
Therefore,  the  Board  cannot  find,  based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  that  the 
applicant's  statement  that  he  was  “drug  free  and  ready  for  recruit  training”  was 
knowingly  fraudulent,  particularly  when  on  the  same  day  he  signed  the  above 
statement, he also informed the recruiter on Form 1966 that he had used illegal drugs, 
and the recruiter did not require further explanation from the applicant, as required by 
the instruction on Form 1966.   

 
9.  An explanation of the applicant's pre-service drug use, as required on Form 
1966, might have given the Board and the Coast Guard some insight into the extent of 
his pre-service drug use.  The applicant might not have been allowed to enlist at all if he 
had a history of extensive drug use because Chapter 2 of the Recruiting Manual states 
that prior drug use may disqualify one from enlisting.   The failure of the recruiter to 
obtain and submit a completed Form 1966 has resulted in insufficient evidence in the 

record to establish fraudulent enlistment on the part of the applicant.  Under the facts of 
this case, the April 11, 2001 positive urinalysis is not proof that the applicant concealed 
his drug use at the time of his enlistment because he admitted to such drug use on April 
10, 2001.   The positive urinalysis sample established only that, at  some point prior to 
providing  the  urine  specimen,  the  applicant  used  illegal  drugs,  which  he  had  clearly 
admitted on Form 1966.  Documenting when the admitted prior drug use occurred was 
the responsibility of the recruiter, which he neglected.  Had the facts been different— 
had the applicant checked “no” in block 26 or checked “yes” in block 26 and explained 
in section VI that he had not used illegal drugs for years, or had the recruiter noted in 
section VI that the applicant refused to explain his drug use—then the Coast Guard’s 
position  that  the  applicant  fraudulently  enlisted  might  have  been  valid.    These,  of 
course, are not the facts on the record. 

 
10.  In addition to the above, there is no evidence in the military record that the 
applicant  was  advised  of  his  right  to  object  to  his  discharge,  the  right  to  make  a 
statement in his own behalf, and his right to consult with a lawyer.  The absence of such 
documentation strongly suggests that the Coast Guard  committed  a harmful error by 
failing to notify the applicant of these rights prior to his discharge.   Article 12.B.18.e. of 
the  Personnel  Manual  mandates  these  rights  for  individuals  being  involuntarily  dis-
charged due to misconduct with less than eight years of service.  Procuring a fraudulent 
enlistment is a type of misconduct.  Id.  Whether or not the applicant would have made 
a statement objecting to his discharge, or whether such statement would have made a 
difference in the decision to discharge him, we do not entertain.  Nor do we think it is 
wise to ignore this apparent violation of due process because the applicant did not raise 
it as an error.  In this regard, if he were not informed of his due process rights, he would 
not  have  known  to  raise  the  issue.    It  was  a  denial  of  due  process  not  to  advise  the 
applicant of such rights.   
 

11.    Therefore,  the  Board  must  determine  what,  if  any,  corrections  should  be 
made to the applicant's record under the circumstances of this case.  The Board does not 
object to the Coast Guard discharging members from the service who test positive for 
drug use at recruit training or while serving on active duty thereafter.  However, the 
applicant should have been advised of his due process rights prior to his discharge, and 
the  reason  for  discharge  that  is  recorded  on  the  DD  Form  214  should  describe  as 
accurately  as  possible  the  circumstances  under  which  he  was  separated.  The  record 
does not support the finding of deliberate concealment of drug use on the part of the 
applicant.   
 

12.    After  reviewing  the  Personnel  Manual  and  the  SPD  Handbook,  the  Board 
finds  that  an  “uncharacterized  discharge”  is  the  most  accurate  description  of  the 
applicant's service at the time of his discharge.  In arriving at this conclusion the Board 
considered the applicant's positive urinalysis test for drug use, the fact that he served 
only  18  days  on  active  duty,  the  recruiter's  failure  to  submit  a  completed  Form  1966, 

and the Coast Guard's apparent failure to advise the applicant of his due process rights 
associated  with  his  discharge.    Article  12.B.20  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  an 
“uncharacterized  discharge”  for  members  who  are  separated  at  the  entry  level  with 
fewer  than  180  days  of  active  service  and  who  have  demonstrated  "poor  proficiency, 
conduct,  aptitude  or  unsuitability"  for  further  service.    The  applicant's  positive 
urinalysis demonstrates his poor conduct and unsuitability for further active service.   

14. The applicant is entitled to the relief discussed above.  

 
 
13.  Block  24  of  the  applicant's  DD  Form  214  should  show  the  character  of  the 
applicant's discharge as "uncharacterized" and block 25 should list Article 12.B.20. of the 
Personnel  Manual  as  the  Separation  Authority.    It  should  list  JGA  (entry  level 
performance and conduct) as the separation code, and RE-3L (eligible for reenlistment 
except for disqualifying factor) as the reenlistment code.  With the RE-3L, the applicant 
must obtain a waiver before he can reenlist in any branch of the service.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 
The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction 
of his military record is granted in part.  His record shall be corrected to show 
that he was discharged from the Coast Guard with an uncharacterized discharge.  
Specifically, his DD Form 214 shall be corrected to show the following: 
 
 
 
 
 

Block 24 shall show that his discharge was uncharacterized. 

Block 23 shall show that the applicant was discharged. 

Block  25  shall  show  Article  12.B.20  of  the  Personnel  Manual  as  the 
separation authority. 

Block 26 shall show JGA as the separation code. 

Block 27 shall show RE-3L as the reenlistment code.  

Block 28 shall show entry level performance and conduct as the narrative 
reason for separation. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen