DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-158 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (former) 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Hale, 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.   It  was  docketed  on  July  29,  2004,  upon  the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated March 31, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The  applicant,  who  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  August  1,  2003, 
asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  discharge  form,  DD  Form  214,  by  upgrading  his 
reenlistment code and separation code.  He did not specify which reenlistment code or 
separation code he wanted in his record.  The applicant argued that the codes should be 
upgraded because the alcohol problems that necessitated his discharge from the Coast 
Guard are “under control,” and he would like to enlist in the U.S. Navy.  In support of 
his application, the applicant submitted a letter from an employee of a medical center 
who  stated  that  the  applicant  had  recently  completed  an  11-day  in-patient  addiction 
program and that his alcohol abuse was currently “in remission and his return to active 
duty should not be delayed.”   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On May 27, 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard at the age of 18.  On 
April 23, 2003, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Although he 

failed the field sobriety test, a subsequent blood test revealed a blood alcohol content 
(BAC) of 0.00.  However, the applicant admitted that he had been drinking earlier that 
evening.    At  the  time  of  his  arrest,  he  was  only  20  years  old  and  under  the  legal 
drinking age (21) for the state in which he was driving. 
 
 
On April 24, 2003, the Coast Guard Command Drug and Alcohol Representative 
(CDAR) for the applicant’s unit counseled him and documented that counseling with a 
form CG-3307 (page 7)1 entry.  The page 7 noted that the applicant had been referred to 
the CDAR for evaluation following his arrest on April 23, 2003, for driving under the 
influence of alcohol.  In addition, the page 7 noted that the applicant would be screened 
for alcohol use at the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, on June 4, 2003.  The page 7 further 
noted that this was the applicant’s first “alcohol incident” for documentation purposes, 
and that any further alcohol incidents or the consumption of alcohol as a minor might 
result in separation from the Coast Guard.  The applicant was ordered to abstain from 
the use of alcohol. 
 
 
On June 5, 2003, the applicant was counseled for arriving to work an hour late, 
and a page 7 was entered into his record to document that counseling.  The supervisor 
who issued the page 7 noted that after speaking with the applicant upon his late arrival, 
it  was  apparent  that  “he  was  hung-over  and  possibly  still  under  the  influence  of 
alcohol.”    Three  hours  after  reporting  to  work,  the  applicant  voluntarily  submitted 
blood for a BAC test, and the level of alcohol in his blood was measured at 0.029.     
 
On  June  10,  2003,  the  applicant  was  once  again  referred  to  the  CDAR  for 
 
evaluation.    On  the  subsequent  page  7  to  document  the  CDAR’s  counseling,  the 
applicant  was  counseled that testing positive for alcohol use on June 5, 2003, was his 
second alcohol incident in two months.  Moreover, the CDAR noted that the applicant 
admitted to underage drinking when his supervisor questioned him about his tardiness 
on June 5, 2003.  The CDAR noted that this second incident showed the applicant’s 
 

blatant disregard of the Coast Guard’s alcohol policy, along with the 
state and federal laws concerning underage drinking, and leaves this 
command  with  no  choice  but  to  process  you  for  discharge  under 
Chapter 20 of the [Coast Guard] Personnel Manual.  
 

 
On  June  19,  2003,  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  of  the  applicant’s  unit 
recommended  that  he  be  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  of  his  second 
alcohol incident and total disregard for Coast Guard policy.  On this date, the applicant 
signed  an  endorsement  acknowledging receipt  of  his  proposed  discharge,  that  he  did 
                                                 
1 A CG-3307 (Administrative Remarks, or page 7) entry documents any counseling that is provided to a 
service member as well as any other noteworthy events that occur during that member’s military career.  
Unless otherwise indicated, all page 7 entries in this case were acknowledged by the applicant with his 
signature. 

not want to submit a statement on his own behalf, that he did not desire to speak to an 
attorney, and that he agreed with the recommendation for discharge.   
 
 
On  June  24,  2003,  another  page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record  that 
documented additional counseling by the CDAR.  The entry indicated that the applicant 
had  been  screened  by  the  Naval  Addiction  Treatment  Facility  Department  (ATFD), 
Naval  Air  Station  Pensacola,  for  his  alcohol  incident  of  June  5,  2003,  was  diagnosed 
with substance dependency for alcohol in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical 
Manual  IV  (DSM  IV),  and  was  being  recommended  for  Level  Three  inpatient 
rehabilitation.    The  page  7  indicated  that  the  applicant  was  to  report  to  a  local  drug 
recovery center on June 30, 2003, to begin rehabilitation.2 
 
 
On July 1, 2003, the District Commander recommended the applicant’s discharge 
for unsuitability because his “poor performance clearly supports the recommendation 
for discharge.” 
 

 
On July 7, 2003, the CDAR counseled the applicant and entered into his record a 
page  7  to  document  his  refusal  to  receive  the  in-patient  treatment  for  alcohol 
dependency as recommended by the ATFD.  The applicant was counseled once again 
that he would be processed for separation from the Coast Guard. 
 

 
On August 1, 2003, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant 
to Article 12.B.12 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  His DD 214 indicates that he 
received  a  discharge  under  honorable  conditions,  a  separation  code  of  JKL,3  and  
narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “misconduct.”    The  DD  214  also  indicates  that  the 
applicant received an RE-4 reenlistment code.  He had served for 3 years, 8 months and 
1 day on active duty. 

 
On  November  26,  2003,  the  applicant  petitioned  the  Coast  Guard  Discharge 
Review Board (DRB).  As a result of the applicant’s petition to the DRB, his DD 214 was 
corrected as follows: 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
•  Discharge changed to Honorable 
•  Authority changed to PERSMAN Article 12.B.16 
•  Separation code changed to JPD4 
•  Narrative reason changed to Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                 
2 Although the Coast Guard had already initiated the applicant’s discharge, the Coast Guard referred him 
for additional counseling and rehabilitation to ensure that he was qualified to apply for future benefits 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of a chemical dependency. 
3 JKL is used to denote an involuntary separation for misconduct.  SPD Code Handbook, page 1-12. 
4 JPD is used to denote an involuntary separation when the member failed through inability or refusal to 
participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete a treatment program for alcohol rehabilitation.  SPD 
Code Handbook, page 1-14. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  November  16,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard 
 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  The JAG argued that the applicant failed to carry his burden of production and 
persuasion  in  proving  that the  Coast  Guard  committed  any  error or  injustice  when  it 
discharged him. 
 

The  JAG  noted  that the  applicant’s  only  evidence  in  support  of  his  application 
was  a  letter  from  a  hospital  indicating  that  he  had  completed  an  alcohol  treatment 
program after his discharge and the applicant’s assertion that his alcohol problems are 
now  under  control.    While  the  JAG  commended  the  applicant’s  efforts,  the  JAG 
nonetheless stated that the applicant did not show that that Coast Guard committed an 
error  or  injustice  in  discharging  him  for  his  alcohol  incidents  and  his  refusal  to 
participate in a treatment program for his alcohol problem.  

 
The  JAG  also  alleged  that  the  applicant  has  not  overcome  the  strong 
presumption  that  “government  officials  …  have  carried  out  their  duties  correctly, 
lawfully, and in good faith.”  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 
Sanders  v.  United  States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979).    The  JAG  argued  that  the 
applicant has failed to prove any factual error and that the Coast Guard was justified in 
discharging the applicant because it “has a significant interest in protecting the public 
and its members from injury or death at the hands of an individual who abuses drugs 
or alcohol.”   

 
The JAG included in his advisory opinion and adopted a memorandum on the 
case  prepared  by  CGPC.    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  twice  found  to  be  in 
violation of Coast Guard policy with respect to alcohol use.  CGPC further noted that 
after  his  first  alcohol  incident,  the  applicant  was  disciplined  but  not  processed  for 
separation.    Finally,  CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  properly  processed  for 
discharge  following  his  second  alcohol  incident  and  that  his  “failure  to  adhere to  the 
rules and regulations of the Coast Guard was of a serious enough nature for the unit to 
request separation.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 19, 2004, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 
the applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant responded on 
December 19, 2004, and stated 
 

I will start of[f] by saying I don’t feel the Coast Guard committed an error 
or  injustice  in  the  manner  of  which  my  discharge  was  carried  out.    My 
behavior  was  a  disgrace.    I  brought  shame  upon  myself  and  the  Coast 
Guard.    I’ve  made  a  huge  mistake  for  disregarding  the  rules  and 
regulations.  But I feel I can still do some good things for the military.  I 
know  I’ve  ruined  my  chance  in  the  Coast  Guard.  I’m  asking  for  a  fresh 
start  in  a  different  branch.    I  hope  that  through  some  chance  the  Board 
might consider this application.  To possibly set-up a date for me to come 
down there and we can meet face to face. 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 

Article  20  of  the  Personnel  Manual  contains  the  regulations  regarding  alcohol 
abuse by Coast Guard members.  Article 20.A.2.d. states that an alcohol incident is “any 
behavior, in which alcohol is determined, by the commanding officer, to be a significant 
or  causative  factor,  that  results  in  the  member's  loss  of  ability  to  perform  assigned 
duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Federal, State, or local laws.  The member need not be 
found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment 
for the behavior to be considered an alcohol incident.” 
 
Article 20.B.2.g. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual states that the first time a 
 
member  is  involved  in  an  alcohol  incident,  except  those  described  in  Article  20.B.2.f., 
the commanding officer shall ensure counseling is conducted and recorded on a page 7 
entry in the member’s personal data record (PDR), acknowledged by the member, and a 
copy sent to CGPC. 
 
 
Article  12.B.2.h.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “[e]nlisted  members 
involved  in  a  second  alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation  in 
accordance with Article 12.B.16.” 
 
Article  20.B.2.j.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (Underage  Consumption  of  Alcohol), 
 
states  that  “underage  drinking  is  considered  an  alcohol  incident.    Should  an  incident 
occur, the CDAR shall counsel the member and initiate an alcohol screening.   If this is 
not the member’s first incident, discharge proceedings shall be initiated.” 
 
 
Article 20.A.2.e. states that “alcohol screening” is an “evaluation by a physician 
who has attended Addiction Orientation for Health Care Provider (AOHCP) training or 
who  has  equivalent  training  regarding  substance  abuse  and  chemical  dependency, 
clinical psychologist, or a DoD civilian equivalent CAAC (Counseling And Assistance 
Center) counselor to determine the nature and extent of alcohol abuse.  An evaluation 

by  a  Collateral  Duty  Alcohol  Representative  [CDAR]  does  not  satisfy  the  screening 
requirement  contained  in  this  manual.”    The  evaluation  and  recommendation  for 
treatment are based on the answers provided by the member in an interview. 
 
 
Article  20.B.2.k.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  members  refusing  to 
undergo the treatment deemed necessary by the commanding officer and a competent 
medical authority are normally processed for separation. 
 

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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.   The application was timely. 
 

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

1. 

2. 

4. 

3. 

 The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
The applicant requested that the reenlistment code and separation code on 
his DD 214 be changed so he can enlist in the U.S. Navy.  Notably, the applicant did not 
allege  that the  Coast Guard  committed  any  error or  injustice  when  it  discharged  him 
following two alcohol incidents and his refusal to participate in a treatment program.  
The applicant merely states that he has taken control of his alcohol problem and seeks 
correction of his record so he can enlist in the Navy.  
 
 
The  record  indicates  that  after  the  applicant’s  first  alcohol  incident  for 
underage  drinking,  he  was  properly  counseled  pursuant  to  Article  20.B.2.g.  of  the 
Personnel Manual.  At the time of his arrest on April 23, 2003, the applicant admitted 
that  he  had  been  drinking  earlier  that  evening.    In  accordance  with  Article  20.B.2.j., 
underage  drinking  is  considered  an  alcohol  incident,  and  the  Board  finds  that  the 
applicant’s  voluntary  admission  that  he  had  been  drinking  is  sufficient  to  warrant 
counseling for an alcohol incident.  The page 7 that documented this alcohol incident 
indicates that he was referred for alcohol screening, as required under Article 20.A.2.e. 
 

5. 

Approximately three months after the first alcohol incident, on April 23, 
2003, the applicant was counseled for a second alcohol incident when he arrived late for 
work and his supervisor determined that he was either drunk or hung-over.   Because 
this was his second alcohol incident, the Coast Guard initiated the applicant’s discharge 
in accordance with Article 12.B.2.h., which states that “[e]nlisted members involved in a 

6. 

second  alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation  in  accordance  with 
Article 12.B.16.”   
 
Although  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  initiated  following  his  second 
 
alcohol incident, the Coast Guard had the applicant screened for alcohol abuse on June 
24,  2003,  in  accordance  with  Article  20.A.2.e.    The  applicant  was  diagnosed  with 
substance  dependency  for  alcohol  and  recommended  for  inpatient  rehabilitation.  
However, the applicant refused to enter the treatment program.  Had the Coast Guard 
not  previously  initiated  his  discharge  for  the  second  alcohol  incident,  it  would  have 
been  permitted  to  do  so  upon  the  applicant’s  failure  to  participate  in  the  treatment 
program in accordance with Article 20.B.2.k.  
 

 7. 

  The JAG recommended that the Board deny relief, because the applicant 
failed to prove that he was erroneously discharged from the Coast Guard.  Moreover, 
the JAG stated that the applicant failed to articulate any reason why the Coast Guard’s 
policy  for  separating  members  with  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  for  more  than  one 
alcohol  incident  should  not  apply  to  him.    Furthermore,  CGPC  stated  that  the 
applicant’s separation was appropriate and that the applicant was afforded his right to 
due process during the separation process.  

 
8. 

The Board finds that the applicant was properly discharged subsequent to 
his  second  alcohol  incident  AND  his  failure  to  participate  in  an  alcohol  treatment 
program.  In accordance with Articles 12.B.2.h. and 20.B.2.k. of the Personnel Manual, 
the applicant’s CO had the authority to recommend discharge for any member who had 
a second alcohol incident or refused to undergo the treatment deemed necessary by the 
commanding officer and a competent medical authority. 

 
9. 

The  statement  provided  by  the  applicant  from  the  employee  of  the 
medical center where he (the applicant) received treatment for his alcohol problem does 
not  persuade  the  Board  that  his  drinking  problem  has  been  resolved.    Moreover,  the 
applicant  has  not  proved  that  either  his  separation  code  or  his  reenlistment  code  is 
erroneous  or  unjust.    They  accurately  reflect  the  nature  of  his  discharge,  and  the 
applicant’s desire to enlist in the Navy does not justify changing them.  

 
10.  Accordingly, relief should be denied. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  the 

correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan