DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-133 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
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 4, 2004, 
upon  the  Board's  receipt  of  the  applicant's  complete  application  for  correction  of  his 
military record.1 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  10,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  upgrading  his  under 
honorable  discharge  to  an  honorable  discharge,  by  changing  his  RE-4  (not  eligible) 
reenlistment  code  to  RE-1  (eligible  to  reenlist),  and  by  changing  the  reason  for  his 
discharged from misconduct to convenience of the government.   
 

The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard under honorable conditions 
(commonly known as  a general discharge) by reason of misconduct (drug abuse).  He 
was  assigned  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  and  a  JKK 
separation code.  
 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

                                                 
1   Even though the application was not placed on the docket until June 4, 2004, the Board received the 
DD Form 149 on May 6, 2003.  The application could not be placed on the docket until the Board received 
the military record, which was June 4, 2004. 

 
The applicant did not allege a specific error with respect to his discharge, but he stated 
that his record of promotions showed that he was an excellent service member and that 
he received awards and decorations as shown on his DD Form 214.  He stated that since 
his  discharge  he  has  been  an  excellent  citizen,  employee  and  father.    He  submitted  a 
letter from his employer who stated that the applicant is an asset to his company and 
recommended the applicant to anyone "looking for an honest, dedicated, professional 
person."    The  applicant  also  sent  a  letter  from  a  family  friend  who  works  with  the 
Virginia State Police and one from a fellow employee.  Each of these individuals spoke 
highly of the applicant. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  March  3,  1992.    At  that  time,  he 

signed an administrative remarks page (page 7), which advised him 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.    No  member  will  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.  

On  September  11,  1995,  the  applicant  participated  in  a  random  unrinalysis 

On  September  20,  1995,  the  applicant's  urine  was  found  to  contain  THC  (a 

 
 
screening by providing a urine sample to be tested for the presence of illegal drugs. 
 
 
marijuana metabolite).   
 
 
On  November  1,  1995,  the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  informed  the 
applicant that he had initiated action to discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard 
with a general discharge under honorable conditions due to drugs.  The CO advised the 
applicant that he could submit a statement in his own behalf and consult with a lawyer. 
 
 
On November 1, 1995, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed 
discharge, did not object to being discharged, waived his right to submit a statement in 
his  own  behalf,  acknowledged  that  he  had  been  provided  with  the  opportunity  to 
consult with a lawyer but waived his right to do so. 
 

 
On November 7, 1995, the applicant's CO recommended that Commander, Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  discharge  the  applicant  due  to  wrongful  use  of 
illegal drugs discovered in the applicant's urine specimen that was provided during a 
random urinalysis collection. 
 
 
misconduct/drug abuse. 
 
 
had served three years, nine months, and six days on active duty. 
 

On November 15, 1995, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged due to 

On December 8, 1995, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard.   He 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On  October  19,  2004,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Judge 
Advocate General 9TJAG), recommending that the Board deny the applicant's request 
for relief.   
 

TJAG stated that instead of disputing the accuracy of the drug test administered 
to him, the applicant points to his generally good service while in the Coast Guard and 
his post-service conduct as evidence that the characterization of his Coast Guard service 
was unjust.    

 
TJAG  also  stated  that  given  the  Coast  Guard's  prominent  role  in  enforcing  the 
nation's drug laws, the Coast Guard's policy on separating drug abusers and assigning 
a reenlistment code of RE-4 makes perfect sense.  He stated that the applicant had failed 
to articulate why this rational policy should apply to everyone but himself. 
 
 
Finally, TJAG asserted 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).   
 
 
who offered the following: 
 

 Attached to the advisory opinion as Enclosure (1) were comments from CGPC, 

The applicant alleges no error in the proceeding that led to his separation, 
and  I  find  no  evidence  of  error  or  injustice  in  the  record  to  recommend 
approval of the applicant's request . . . The record also indicates that the 
applicant was counseled extensively concerning Coast Guard policies on 
the use of illicit substances and the consequences for violating them.   
 
[T]he applicant requests relief on t eh basis of his conduct as a civilian.  In 
support of his request, he provides ample evidence of his good citizenship 

subsequent to his discharge.  However, the applicant's discharge was and 
is  appropriate,  and  accurately  reflects  the  character  of  the  applicant's 
period  of  service  with  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  engaged  in  a 
serious infraction of the Coast Guard's core values of Honor, Respect, and 
Devotion  to  Duty  that  would  result  in  a  discharge  with  the  same 
characterization  today.    The  Coast  Guard  has  no  policy,  nor  is  it 
contemplating a policy, to upgrade the discharge of members based solely 
on  their  subsequent  good  behavior  in  civilian  life,  especially  discharges 
concerning the use of illegal drugs.  

  

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 20, 2004, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant 

 
 
for any response that he desired to make.  He did not submit a response. 
 
 

 
 
 

DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (DRB) PROCEEDINGS 

 
 
Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  exhausted  his 
administrative remedies by filing an application with the DRB.  On April 17, 2001, the 
DRB  issued  a  decision  refusing  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  [DRB]  determined  that  since  there  was  no  error  in  fact  or  law,  and 
that the exercise of discretion by Coast Guard authorities was appropriate, 
the  discharge  was  proper.    The  [DRB]  determined  that  neither  the 
character of the discharge nor reason or authority for the discharge should 
be changed, corrected, or modified.   

 

 
 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

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.  
Commanding  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. 

 
 
Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  section  two,  authorizes  only 
the  assignment  of  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  for  the  JDT  separation  code.    The  SPD 
Handbook  states  that  the  JDT  separation  code  is  appropriate  when  there  is  an 
"[i]nvoluntary discharge directed by established directive (no board entitlement) when 
a  member  procured  fraudulent  enlistment,  induction  or  period  of  military  service 
through  deliberate  material  misrepresentation,  omission  or  concealment  of  drug 
use/abuse." 
 

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: 
 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10 
United States Code.  The application was timely.  An applicant has fifteen years from 
the date of discharge to apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of 
his  discharge.    The  applicant  applied  to  the  DRB  approximately  five  years  after  his 
discharge, and the DRB issued a final decision on April 17, 2001. Pursuant to 33 CFR § 
52.13, the applicant was required to exhaust his administrative remedies by applying to 
the DRB. According to Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F. 3rd. 738 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the 
BCMR's  three  year  statute  of  limitations  begins  to  run  at  the  conclusion  of  DRB 
proceedings  for  an  applicant  who  is  required  to  exhaust  administrative  remedies  by 
applying to the DRB before seeking redress from the BCMR.  Therefore, the applicant's 
BCMR application, received by the Board on May 6, 2003, was timely. 
 

2.  The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  in  discharging  him  with  a  general  discharge  under 
honorable  conditions  because  of  misconduct/drug  abuse.  Article  12.B.18.b.4.a.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual  states  that  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.  Moreover, when the applicant enlisted, he signed a 
page 7 entry warning him that the illegal use of drugs would result in discharge from 
the Coast Guard.    
 

3.    The  applicant's  post-service  good  conduct  is  not  a  sufficient  basis  for 
upgrading  his  discharge  due  to  misconduct,  particularly  in  light  of  the  Service's  zero 

5.  The  applicant  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  case.  Accordingly, 

tolerance for drug use.  According to a 1976 memorandum from the General Counsel 
who  was  then  the  Secretary's  delegate,  good  post-service  conduct  is  not  a  sufficient 
basis on which to upgrade a discharge. 
 
 
4.  The  general  discharge  for  misconduct  drug  use  was  assigned  in  accordance 
with regulations.  The SPD handbook authorizes only the assignment of only an RE-4 
reenlistment code with the JKK (drug use/abuse) separation code. 
 
 
relief should be denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  _____________________  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 James G. Parks 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied.