DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-029 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 November 24, 2003, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and 
military records.1 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  29,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who received a discharge under other than honorable conditions 
(OTH)  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  2,  1986,  for  possession  of  marijuana,  asked  the 
Board to correct his record by upgrading his discharge.   
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  told,  prior  to  his  discharge,  that  he  would 
receive a general discharge under honorable conditions and that, after six months, the 
general discharge would be changed to honorable.  The applicant alleged that he served 
                                                 
1  The applicant applied to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and received an acknowledgement of his 
application dated March 21, 2000.  Apparently, no action was taken by the DRB.  The applicant applied to 
the BCMR on October 25, 2000.  The BCMR ordered his military records several times.  However, they 
were  never  received  from  the  National  Personnel  Records  Center  (NPRC).    On  March  5,  2003,  the 
applicant  submitted  another  application  to  the  BCMR.    Upon  inquiry,  the  DRB  stated  that  it  no  longer 
had  jurisdiction  over  the  case  because  more  than  15  years  had  passed  since  the  applicant’s  discharge.  
Further  attempts  to  order  his  records  from  the  NPRC  were  unsuccessful.  On  November  24,  2003,  the 
Chair  determined  that  copies  of  his  military  records  received  from  the  DVA  and  from  the  applicant 
himself were sufficient to warrant docketing his case.   

the Coast Guard with honor before and after his “mistakes” and received a medal and 
ribbon.  The applicant alleged that the fact that he was issued a DD form 257CG at the 
time of his discharge proves that he was supposed to receive a general discharge rather 
than an OTH discharge.  In addition, he submitted a letter to him from the Department 
of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), which states that an “Administrative Decision finding your 
military service Honorable for VA Purposes was processed on February 22, 2001.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he did not discover the error in his record until 1998, 
when he applied for benefits from the DVA and was denied them.2  He alleged that it is 
in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his case because he served his country 
with honor and should not be deprived of his rights and benefits. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On July 12, 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  He completed boot 

 
camp and was advanced to seaman apprentice (SA). 
 
 
On September 20, 1982, the applicant was taken to mast for having marijuana in 
his  possession.    He  was  found  guilty,  reduced  to  pay  grade  E-1,  fined  $550.00,  and 
assigned  forty-five  days  of  extra  duty.    He  later  regained  his  rank  and  was  further 
advanced to seaman (E-3) on October 31, 1983. 
 
 
On June 24, 1985, the applicant was taken to mast for being drunk and disorderly 
aboard his cutter.  He was found guilty and restricted to the cutter for thirty days with 
extra duties.  
 
 
On January 28, 1986, the applicant was taken to mast for having marijuana in his 
possession.  He was found guilty, reduced from pay grade E-3 to E-2, and restricted to 
base for thirty days with extra duties. 
 
On February 19, 1986, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) notified him that 
 
he  was  recommending  to  the  Commandant  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a 
general  discharge  for  possession  of  marijuana,  which  constituted  a  “drug  incident” 
under Article 20 of the Personnel Manual.  The CO also notified the applicant that he 
had a right to consult a lawyer and to submit a statement in his own behalf. 
 
 
On the same day, the applicant signed a form acknowledging receipt of his CO’s 
notification and stating that he did not desire to consult a lawyer, he would not submit 
a statement in his own behalf, and he did not object to his general discharge. 
 

                                                 
2  On another DD 149 submitted by the applicant, he alleged that he discovered the error in 2000. 

 
Also  on  February  19,  1986,  the  CO  sent  the  Commandant  his  recommendation 
that the applicant receive a general discharge for misconduct due to his possession of 
marijuana,  which  the  applicant  admitted  at  mast.    The  CO  also  noted  the  applicant’s 
two prior masts. 
 
 
On  May  22,  1986,  the  Group  Commander  forwarded  a  copy  of  the  CO’s 
recommendation to the District Commander, indicating that the original had been lost 
in  the  mail.    On  June  2,  1986,  the  District  Commander  forwarded  the  CO’s  recom-
mendation to the Commandant and recommended approval of a general discharge. 
 
 
On  June  11,  1986,  the  Commandant  ordered  the  applicant’s  command  to 
discharge him within thirty days with a general discharge by reason of misconduct due 
to drug abuse, in accordance with Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
On July 2, 1986, the applicant was discharged.  His discharge form, DD 214, and 
an Administrative Remarks entry in his record indicate that he was discharged “under 
other  than  honorable  conditions”  due  to  misconduct.    However,  a  Personnel  Action 
form of the same date shows that he received a general discharge due to misconduct. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On April 14, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board correct the applicant’s record 
by upgrading his discharge to general under honorable conditions.  He stated that the 
“record  indicates  that  COMDT  (G-PE-1)  ordered  a  General  Discharge,  and  the  unit 
made  an  administrative  error  entering  ‘Under  Other  than  Honorable  Conditions’  in 
block 24 of the Applicant’s DD-214.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 14, 2004, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant responded on May 17, 
2004,  asking  that  his  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable  because,  he  alleged,  he  has 
been deprived of military benefits and rights since his discharge. 
 

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: 
 

1. 

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

§ 1552. 
 
2. 

Although the applicant filed his application more than three years after he 
knew  or  should  have  known  that  his  discharge  form  showed  an  OTH  discharge,  he 
filed it within three years of having timely filed an application with the DRB, which has 
a fifteen-year statute of limitations.  Although the DRB apparently took no action on his 
application,  the  Board  finds  that  the  application  must  be  considered  timely  in 
accordance with the decision in Ortiz v. Sec’y of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994). 

 
3. 

5. 

4. 

On June 11, 1986, the Commandant ordered the applicant’s command to 
discharge him within thirty days with a general discharge by reason of misconduct due 
to drug abuse, in accordance with Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual.  For reasons 
not apparent in the record, on July 2, 1986, the applicant’s command awarded him an 
OTH discharge, contrary to the Commandant’s order.  The Judge Advocate General has 
stated that the OTH discharge was an administrative error by the applicant’s command 
and that it should be upgraded to a general discharge. 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  discharge  to  honorable 
because,  he  alleged,  he  has  been  deprived  of  military  benefits  and  rights  since  1986.  
However,  if  the  applicant  has  been  deprived  of  anything  since  1986,  he  bears  the 
responsibility  because  he  failed  to  seek  correction  of  his  command’s  error  in  a timely 
manner.  He could have, but failed to, seek a correction of his OTH discharge in 1986. 
 
The record indicates that the applicant was  discharged for possession of 
 
marijuana, which constituted a “drug incident.”  Under Articles 12-B-18.b.(4) and 20.C. 
of the Personnel Manual, members involved in a drug incident must be separated with 
no  better  than  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions.    The  record  indicates 
that  the  applicant  was  provided  all  due  process  prior  to  his  discharge  in  that  he  was 
offered, but chose to waive, his right to consult counsel and to submit a statement in his 
own behalf.  
 

6. 

The  applicant  submitted  correspondence  from  the  DVA  stating  that  an 
“Administrative Decision finding your military service Honorable for VA Purposes was 
processed  on  February  22,  2001.”    The  fact  that  the  DVA  has  determined  that  the 
applicant’s service was honorable for its own purposes is insufficient to prove that the 
Commandant committed any error or injustice in ordering that the applicant receive a 

general discharge, in accordance with Articles 12-B-18.b.(4) and 20.C. of the Personnel 
Manual. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by upgrading the applicant’s 

discharge to general under honorable conditions.    

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is granted in part.  His military records, including his DD form 214, shall 
be corrected to show that he received a general discharge under honorable conditions. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 Harold C. Davis, MD 

 

 

 

 
 James G. Parks 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn