DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-004 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The BCMR docketed the 
case  on  October  27,  2003,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  10,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  who  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions 
from the Coast Guard on June 1, 1986, after his urine tested positive for metabolites of 
marijuana, cocaine, and codeine, asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his 
discharge to honorable.   
 

The applicant alleged that the general discharge is “not reflective of [his] overall 
honorable service” during seven years on active duty.  He alleged that he was suffering 
from  depression,  grief  over  the  death  of  his  father,  and  service-connected  disabilities, 
which  caused  him  to  make  the  mistake  that  led  to  his  general  discharge.    He  alleged 
that  he  had  been  recommended  for  reenlistment  and  that  his  superiors  were  very 
impressed with his military bearing and professional knowledge. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly  informed  of  his  options,  he 
would have remained on active duty, received treatment for his depression, and made a 
career in the Coast Guard.  However, he alleged, he “wasn’t provided with a level play-

ing field and a number of choices made by [his] command and [him]self weren’t well 
thought out.” 

 
The applicant stated that since his discharge, he had worked hard, raised a fam-
ily, and actively advocated for the rights of veterans.  He stated that he did not apply 
sooner  for  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge  because  he  did  not  know  there  was  a  way  to 
appeal it. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On February 12, 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  
Emergency Data forms in his record indicate that his father passed away sometime after 
his enlistment but prior to April 26, 1982. 
 
 
On February 4, 1982, the applicant was taken to mast in accordance with Article 
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and convicted of wrongfully using 
marijuana on or about January 25, 1982, and of being derelict in his duties, in violation 
of  Articles  92  and  134  of  the  UCMJ.    He  was  fined  $200.00,  awarded  fourteen  days’ 
restriction to base with extra duties, and reduced from pay grade E-4 to E-3. 
 
 
On July 29, 1982, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) recommended to the 
Commandant that the applicant’s rank be restored because he was working hard and 
seemed “to have learned from his mistake and ha[d] shown no indications of repeating 
it.”  On August 11, 1982, the Commandant approved the restoration of the applicant’s 
pay grade to E-4. 
 
 
On November 1, 1983, the applicant underwent a physical examination.  On his 
Report  of  Medical  History,  he  reported  never  having  any  “depression  or  excessive 
worry” and stated that he was in good health.  There is no evidence of any complaint 
about or treatment for any mental health condition in his Coast Guard medical record. 
 
 
Beginning with his performance evaluation for the period ending September 30, 
1984, the applicant received very low to mediocre marks on his evaluations up to the 
day of his discharge (marks of 2, 3, and 4 on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best). 
 
 
three-year period from February 4, 1982, to February 4, 1985. 
 
 
On  May  1,  1985,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  made  an  administrative 
entry (“page 7”) in his record to document counseling about “drastically” declining per-
formance.  He noted that during the previous six months, the applicant’s grooming and 
appearance had become poor and he had become a burden to his colleagues as he had 
been  unable  to  complete  tasks.    The  commanding  officer  warned  the  applicant  that 

On  February  5,  1985,  the  applicant  received  a  Good  Conduct  Award  for  the 

On October 15, 1985, the applicant attended training on the Coast Guard’s poli-

unless there were “a drastic improvement in [his] performance and appearance, disci-
plinary actions [would] be taken.” 
 
 
cies regarding drug and alcohol abuse. 
 
 
On March 10, 1986, the applicant underwent a random urinalysis.  On March 19, 
1986, the laboratory reported that his urine tested positive for metabolites of marijuana.  
On March 25, 1986, the laboratory reported that his urine had also tested positive for 
metabolites of cocaine. 
 
 
On April 9, 1986, the applicant’s Group Commander informed him in a letter that 
because  his  urine  had  tested  positive  for  cocaine  use,  he  was  recommending  that  the 
applicant  be  administratively  separated  with  a  general  discharge  due  to  misconduct.  
The Group Commander also advised the applicant that he had a right to consult with 
an attorney and to submit a statement on his own behalf that would be forwarded with 
the Group Commander’s recommendation. 
 
 
On  May  12,  1986, the applicant  signed  an  acknowledgement  indicating  that  he 
had received his Group Commander’s notification and had an opportunity to  consult 
with  an  attorney.    The  applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit  a  statement  in  his  own 
behalf and stated that he did not object to being discharged. 
 
On  May  14,  1986,  the  District  Commander  forwarded  the  recommendation  for 
 
the applicant’s general discharge to the Commandant.  On June 5, 1986, the Comman-
dant directed that the applicant receive a general discharge for misconduct due to drug 
abuse, in accordance with Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
On  June  13,  1986,  the applicant  received  a  general  discharge  “under  honorable 
conditions”  with  a  narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “Misconduct”  and  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code (ineligible). 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On March 11, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request 
for relief because of its untimeliness or, if not, for lack of merit.  He based his recom-
mendation  on  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC). 

 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s general discharge was “appropriate and carried 
out in accordance with the policy in effect at that time.”  He pointed out that, although 
the  policy  in  the  mid  1980s  gave  illegal  drug  users,  such  as  the  applicant,  a  “second 

chance,” no such leniency is afforded members today under the “zero tolerance” policy.  
CGPC  stated  that  the  record  proves  that  the  applicant  was  afforded  his  due  process 
rights.    CGPC  stated  that  following  his  second  drug  incident,  the  applicant  was  not 
entitled to another chance to stay in the Coast Guard and had no “options” other than 
to be discharged. 

 
CGPC further stated that the applicant never complained of or sought treatment 
for any depression or mental disorder while in the Coast Guard.    CGPC argued that, 
even if the applicant was depressed, it would not have excused his misconduct.  Finally, 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions” 
appropriately  reflects  the  fact  that  he  performed  some  honorable  military  service  but 
engaged in serious misconduct. 

 
TJAG argued that the application should be denied for untimeliness because it 
was filed nearly sixteen years after the applicant’s discharge and because the applicant 
“has not provided good cause for his failure to timely file.” 

 
TJAG argued that the applicant’s “self-serving statement that he doesn’t believe 
the characterization of his discharge adequately reflects his service and that he had per-
sonal  problems  during  his  service”  does  not  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity 
accorded the actions of his command in awarding him a general discharge after repeat-
ed drug abuse. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 11, 2004, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

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

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 Under Article 12-B-18.b.(4) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1986, the Com-

 
mandant could separate a member for misconduct due to drug abuse as follows:  
 

Drug  abuse.    The  illegal,  wrongful,  or  improper  use,  possession,  sale  transfer,  or  intro-
duction  on  a  military  installation  of  any  narcotic  substance,  intoxicating  inhaled  sub-
stance, marijuana, or controlled substance, as established be 21 U.S.C. 812.  Any member 
involved in a drug incident will be separated from the Coast Guard with no higher than a 
general  discharge.    However,  in  truly  exceptional  situations,  commanding  officers  may 
recommend retention of members E-3 an below involved in only a single drug incident. 
…  

 
Under Article 12-B-18.e.(1), a member with less than eight years of active service 
 
who  was  being  recommended  for  a  general  discharge  for  misconduct  was  entitled  to 

(a) be informed of the reasons for the recommended discharge, (b) consult an attorney, 
and (c) submit a statement in his own behalf. 
 
Under  Article  20.C.  of  the  current  Personnel  Manual,  any  member  involved  in 
 
any “drug incident” is administratively discharged with no greater than a general dis-
charge under honorable conditions.  
 

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: 
 

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

1. 
§ 1552.   
 
2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant  discovered  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  in  his 
record.1  The record indicates that the applicant signed and received his discharge docu-
ments in 1986.  Therefore, he knew or should have known of the character of his dis-
charge at that time.  Although the applicant stated that he did not learn that he could 
appeal the character of his discharge until recently, his failure to investigate the possi-
bility of appeal does not toll the Board’s statute of limitations.  Thus, his application was 
untimely. 

 
3. 

The  Board  may  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  if  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to do so.2  Factors for the Board to consider in determining whether it 
is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations include any stated reasons 
for the delay and whether a cursory review of the record indicates that there is some 
merit in the case.3   

 
4. 

The  applicant  stated  that  he  delayed  appealing  the  character  of  his  dis-
charge simply because he did not know that he could do so.  The Board does not find 
this explanation to be compelling. 

 
5. 

The record indicates that the applicant received a general discharge under 
honorable conditions after the second time he was found to have used illegal drugs, in 
accordance with Article 12-B-18.b.(4) of the Personnel Manual.  The record further indi-

                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
2 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 
3 See Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992). 

cates that he received all due process to which he was entitled under Article 12-B-18 of 
the Personnel Manual. 

 
6. 

Although the applicant argued that the character of his discharge does not 
accurately reflect the character of his service, the Board finds that his history of miscon-
duct and poor to mediocre evaluation marks fully supported the discharge he received.  
The Board notes that after his first drug incident, the applicant received a second chance 
to  succeed  but  failed  to  do  so  and  repeated  his  misconduct.    Moreover,  there  is  no 
evidence in the record to support his allegation that he was suffering from any stress or 
depression. 

 
7. 

The Board finds no reason to waive the statute of limitations in this case as 

a review of the record has shown that there is no merit in it whatsoever. 

 
8. 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Audrey Roh 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer