DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2007-111 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 Chair docketed the case on March 8, 2007, 
upon receipt of the application, and subsequently prepared the final decision as required by 33 
C.F.R. § 52.61(c).  
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 15, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to remove an administrative remarks (page 7) entry docu-
menting his first alcohol incident from his record.   The applicant stated that it recently came to 
his attention that his record contained this documentation.  He claimed that his command told 
him at the time of the incident that the page 7 would not be placed in his record and that it would 
be considered as an in-house matter.  He also alleged that policy was not followed, but he did not 
explain what he meant.  In this regard, he stated “I was directed to see the CDAR (Collateral 
Duty Alcohol  Representative)  or  [to  undergo]  an  alcohol  screening  outlined  in  the  [Personnel 
Manual] . . .”  
 
 
The applicant stated that he did not discover the alleged error until January 1, 2007.  He 
stated that an alcohol incident was documented in his record on January 3, 2007 (his second), 
and is now being processed for separation.     
 
 
following: 
 

The  applicant  submitted  a  statement  from  his  former  officer-in-charge,  who  wrote  the 

I was [the applicant’s] officer in charge at ANT xxxxxx from July 2003 until June 
2004.  I have been informed by [the applicant] that he has recently been placed on 
report  for  a  second  alcohol  related  incident.    [He]  was  involved  in  an  incident 
prior to my arrival at ANT xxxxxx.  The previous command handled the incident 

 

SUMMARY OF RECORD 

and  discipline.    I  don’t  recollect  the  details  of  the  incident,  except  for  what  is 
written  in  the  page  7  dated  21  July  03.    If  this  [page  7]  was  issued  to  [the 
applicant] then [he] would have been screened by the Group xxxxxxxxx CDAR 
and or medical staff at the xxxxxxxxxx Naval Hospital and should be verified in 
his medical record.  I believe I held the [page 7] suspension to further determine 
my assessment of [the applicant’s] performance.  I don’t recall any further need 
for administrative action in regards to [the applicant].   
 

  * 

 

* 

* 

 

 
[The applicant] has at times displayed a disposition that was not always sunny or 
friendly, but his personality traits were not a performance problem.  He used to 
make  mistakes  much  as  any  young  PO  would.    I  will  say  he  did  rest  upon  his 
laurels and lost his motivation for advancement.   I suspect due to the premium 
duty that ANT xxxxxxxxx afforded.   

 
  
On August 26, 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  On July 3, 
2003, the applicant was taken to non-judicial punishment (captain’s mast) under Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He was give 14 days of extra duties for an unauthor-
ized absence and for larceny.   
 
 
was terminated on July 3, 2003.  The applicant acknowledged this entry with his signature.   
 

As a result of the NJP the applicant’s eligibility period for earning a good conduct award 

On July 21, 2003, a page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record documenting an alcohol 
incident on June 19, 2003.  The page 7 stated that the applicant removed public safety signs and 
that  alcohol  was  involved  in  the  incident.    The  applicant  was  warned  that  this  was  his  first 
alcohol incident and that any further such incidents would result in his separation from the Coast 
Guard.  The page 7 also stated that the applicant was “counseled on policies concerning alcohol 
use/abuse and the serious nature of this incident” and that he would be screened by CAAC at a 
Navy hospital.  The applicant signed this entry and stated that “I have read and understand the 
above entry.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 31, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.   Attached  to  the 
advisory opinion as Enclosure (1) was a memorandum from the Commander, Coast Guard Per-
sonnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  the  JAG  asked  the  Board  to  accept  as  the  Coast  Guard’s 
advisory opinion.  CGPC recommended that relief be denied and offered the following:   
 

The  applicant  maintains  that  the  documentation  regarding  his  June  19,  2003 
alcohol incident was not to be made a matter of his official personnel record.  The 
July 21, 2003 CG-3307 entry documenting this incident . . . is a part of the appli-

cant’s permanent personnel data record.  The applicant has provided a statement 
from  his  former  [OIC]  that  supports  the  applicant’s  assertion  that  the  [page  7] 
entry may have been withheld. 
 
However, there is no provision within the Personnel Manual for the command to 
hold  a  [page  7]  entry  documenting  an  alcohol  incident  to  evaluate  the  service 
member’s subsequent performance.  [Article 20.B.2.g. of the Personnel Manual] 
prescribes  that  such  entries  shall  be  made  to  document  an  alcohol  incident.  
Neither  the  applicant  nor  his  former  [OIC]  disputes  the  nature  of  the  alcohol 
incident only the formality of placing the properly executed [page 7] entry in the 
applicant’s record.  Any withholding of such documentation from the applicant’s 
record would be contrary to the provisions of the Personnel Manual.    
 
The applicant contends that he did not receive counseling and treatment in accor-
dance with applicable policies after his incident.  While his record does not con-
tain [page 7] entries documenting such subsequent actions, this does not support 
the removal of the original [page 7] entry required to document the incident.  The 
applicant’s record reveals that he received commanding officer’s NJP for [absence 
and larceny offenses].   
 
The [page 7] entry documenting his first alcohol incident should remain a part of 
his permanent record.  The potential lack of counseling and treatment regarding 
the  applicant’s  first  alcohol  incident  may  have  bearing  upon  any  potential  dis-
charge  proceedings  based  upon  a  subsequent  alcohol  incident.    This  does  not 
necessitate  or  justify  the  removal  of  the  existing  documentation  of  the  first 
incident.    

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 2, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the view of the Coast Guard 
and allotted him thirty days to submit a reply.   The BCMR did not receive a response from the 
Applicant.   

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article 20.A.2.b. of the Personnel Manual states that alcohol abuse is a general term of 
the misuse of alcohol which interferes with the user's health, safety, job performance, family life, 
or other required social adaptation.    
 
 
Article  20.A.2.d.  defines  “alcohol  incident”  as  "[a]ny  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."  This 
provision further states, "The member must actually consume alcohol for an alcohol incident to 
have occurred." 
 
 
Article 20.B.2.e. states that any member involved in an alcohol incident shall be screened 
and the results of this alcohol screening shall be recorded and acknowledged on a page 7 entry 
describing the facts of the incident or risk factors, the results of the screening, the position and 
organization of the individual conducting the screening, and a statement of the treatment recom-
mended, if any. 
 
 
Article  20.B.2.g.  states  that  upon  a  first  alcohol  incident  an  enlisted  member  shall  be 
counseled and a page 7 documenting the counseling shall be placed in the member's PDR, with 
the  member's  written  acknowledgement.    The  counseling  should  include  advice  on  the  Coast 
Guard policy on alcohol abuse and a warning that a subsequent incident normally will result in 
separation action.   
  
 
Article 20.B.2.h.2. states that enlisted members involved in a second alcohol incident will 
normally be processed for separation in accordance with Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Man-
ual (unsuitability).  
  

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 applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

1. 

 
3.  

10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant claims that the page 7 documenting his first alcohol incident should 
not be in his record because his command told him at the time that the alcohol incident would be 
handled as an in-house matter.  The applicant’s former OIC for the period from July 2003 to June 
2004 wrote in a recent statement that he believed he held the page 7 in  suspension to further 
assess the applicant’s performance, and he does  not recall that there was  any  further need  for 
administrative action with respect to the applicant. 

 
However,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  this  document  was  included  in  the 
applicant’s  record  by  accident.    First,  the  Board  questions  the  reliability  of  the  OIC’s  current 
statement due to his admitted faulty memory about the specifics of the incident and his ability to 
recall only what is written on the page 7.  If the OIC cannot remember the specifics of the alco-
hol incident, the Board finds it difficult to rely on his memory about what he may have told the 
applicant about the page 7.  Second, even if the OIC told the applicant that he would hold the 
page 7 in suspension to further assess his performance, his statement that  the applicant rested 
upon his laurels and lost his motivation for advancement indicates that the OIC had a legitimate 
performance-related basis for placing the page 7 in the applicant’s record. 
 

5.  In addition, as the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion pointed out, neither the applicant 

 
4.  Moreover, the OIC has discretion on deciding whether or not an incident is an alcohol 
incident,  but  Article  20.B.2.g.  makes  clear  that  once  that  determination  is  made  the  page  7 
becomes mandatory.   This provision states that upon a first alcohol incident an enlisted member 
shall be counseled and a page 7 documenting the counseling shall be placed in the member's 
PDR, with the member's written acknowledgement.  The counseling should include advice on the 
Coast  Guard  policy  on  alcohol  abuse  and  a  warning  that  a  subsequent  incident  normally  will 
result in separation.  By preparing and properly executing the page 7, the OIC had determined 
that the applicant was involved in an alcohol incident, at which point he was duty bound to place 
it in the applicant’s record.  The statement by the OIC, with admitted memory deficiencies, is not 
sufficient to overcome the requirements of the regulation or the presumption of regularity, i.e. 
that the document was properly placed into the applicant’s record by someone with the authority 
to do so.1 
 
 
nor the OIC stated that the applicant was not involved in an alcohol incident on June 19, 2003. 
 
 
6.    With  respect  to  the  applicant’s  allegation  that  proper  policy  was  not  followed,  the 
Board is unsure as to what the applicant meant since he failed to explain it.  He mentioned that 
he was directed to see the CDAR or to undergo an alcohol screening as outlined in the Personnel 
Manual.  However, the applicant does not state that he was not screened only that he was direct-
ed to be screened.  Article 20.B.2.e. of the Personnel Manual states that any member involved in 
an  alcohol  incident  will  have  an  alcohol  screening,  the  result  of  which  shall  be  recorded  and 
acknowledged on a page 7.  While the Coast Guard admitted there is no page 7 in the applicant’s 
record documenting this screening, the Board agrees with the advisory opinion that the failure of 
the command to screen the applicant does not make the page 7 documenting the alcohol incident 
invalid.  As stated above, a page 7 is required when a determination has been made that a mem-
ber  was  involved  in  an  alcohol  incident.    Its  validity  is  not  dependent  upon  the  creation  of 
another page 7 documenting the results of the applicant’s subsequent alcohol screening.  As the 
advisory opinion stated, if the command failed to screen the applicant as a result of the alcohol 
incident, such information would be relevant in any discharge proceeding against the applicant 
due to involvement in alcohol incidents. 
 
 
in this case, and relief should be denied. 
    
.    
 

7.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant has failed to prove an error or injustice 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

 

                                                 
1  See Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl.  1979)  (holding  that  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  court  presumes  that  government  officials  have  acted 
“correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”). 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  the  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger