DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-043 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 December 22, 2003, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and 
military records. 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 9, 2004, is signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  who  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions 
from  the  Coast  Guard  on  March  22,  1988,  for  illegal  drug  abuse,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his record by upgrading his discharge to honorable.  He stated that he is trying 
to improve his life and would like an honorable discharge so that he can get educational 
benefits under the GI Bill. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On April 21, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  He 
completed  boot  camp  and  was  assigned  to  a  cutter.    In  1987,  he  applied  for  and  was 
enrolled in “A” School to become a petty officer. 
 
 
urine specimens for urinalysis and that both tested positive for morphine. 
 

Laboratory records indicate that on January 11, 1988, the applicant provided two 

 
On  February  22,  1988,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  at  “A”  School 
informed  him  in  writing  that  he  was  requesting  authority  from  the  Commandant  to 
award him a general discharge for drug abuse.  The CO also informed the applicant that 
he had a right to consult an attorney and to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In 
response,  the  applicant  signed  an  acknowledgement  of  the  CO’s  notice.    In  it,  the 
applicant indicated that he understood the ramifications of a general discharge, that he 
had been “provided the opportunity to consult with an assigned military lawyer,” and 
that he did “not desire to make a statement in writing in my own behalf.” 
 
 
On February 25, 1988, the CO asked the Commandant for authority to award the 
applicant a general discharge for drug abuse.  The CO cited the positive urinalyses and 
informed the Commandant that the applicant had been advised of his rights and had 
waived them. 
 
 
On March 16, 1988, the Commandant ordered the CO to award the applicant a 
general discharge for drug abuse within thirty days, pursuant to Article 12-B-18 of the 
Personnel Manual. 
 
 
On  March  22,  1988,  the  applicant  was  discharged.    His  DD  214  shows  that  he 
received a general discharge for misconduct with an RE-4 reenlistment code (ineligible), 
pursuant to Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  May  4,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  sub-

mitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case. 

 
TJAG  argued  that  the  applicant’s  request  was  untimely  and  that  he  had  not 
submitted any evidence to show that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to waive 
the three-year statute of limitations. 

 
Regarding  the  merits  of  the  case,  TJAG  argued  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to 
submit  any  evidence  to  overcome  the  presumption  that  his  superiors  acted  lawfully, 
correctly, and in good faith in awarding him a general discharge for drug abuse. Arens 
v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979). 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  May  5,  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 1988, 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 and 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  subject  to  an  administrative  discharge  with  no  greater  than  a 
general discharge 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. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552. The applicant was 
discharged on March 22, 1988.  Therefore, he knew or should have known of the alleged 
error in his record in 1988.  His application was untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  waive  the  three-year 
statute 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 
cursory review of the merits of the case and consider the reasons for the delay.  Allen v. 
Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).   

 
4. 

The applicant did not explain why he delayed seeking an upgrade of his 
discharge.    He  stated  only  that  he  wants  his  discharge  upgraded  now  so  that  he  can 
receive educational benefits. 

 
5. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant was 
properly discharged with a general discharge in accordance with Article 12-B-18 of the 
Personnel Manual after his urine tested positive for morphine use.  The record indicates 
that he was afforded all due process, and the applicant has submitted no evidence to 
show that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in discharging him.  

 
6. 

Therefore, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive 

the statute of limitations in this case. 
 

7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied.   
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod  

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Marc J. Weinberger