DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1998-002 
 
 
   

 

 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10, United States Code.  It commenced upon the BCMR’s receipt of 
the applicant’s request on October 2, 1997. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 11, 1998, is signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxxxxxx  in  the  United  States  Coast  Guard, 
 
asked the Board to correct his military record by changing his reenlistment code 
from RE-4 to one which would allow him to enlist in the Air Force. 
 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE APPLICANT 

 
 
The applicant alleged that, at the time of his hardship discharge in June 
199x, he was not told that the RE-4 reenlistment code he had received would not 
allow  him  to  reenlist  in  the  Coast  Guard  or  enlist  in  another  service  once  the 
hardship  was  over.    The  applicant  submitted  affidavits  from  his  mother  and 
grandmother  stating  that,  because  the  applicant’s  brother  had  moved  closer  to 
their  home  and  would  now  be  able  to  assist  them,  the  hardship  which  had 
required the applicant’s discharge from the Service no longer existed. 
 

 
On  August  7,  1998,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the requested relief due to 
“failure of proof.”  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  “service  record  clearly 
indicates  that  he  was  advised  on  30  June  199x  that  he  was  not  being 
recommended for reenlistment.” According to the Chief Counsel, the same entry 
in  the  applicant’s  record  showed  that  he  had  also  acknowledged  having  read 
Article  12-B-53  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  and  having  had  all  his 
questions answered. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  a  commanding  officer  has  “considerable 
discretion” in deciding what RE code to assign to members with less than eight 
years  of  service.    He  alleged  that,  unless  the  Board  finds  “clear  proof  that 
Applicant  was  prejudiced  by  a  violation  of  a  procedural  right,  an  error  of 
material  fact,  or  an  abuse  of  discretion,”  it  must  presume  that  the  applicant’s 
commanding  officer  carried  out  his  duty  correctly  in  assigning  an  RE-4  to  the 
applicant. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel also stated that the applicant’s commanding officer had 
to  choose  between  an  RE-3H  and  an  RE-4  because  the  applicant  was  being 
discharged  by  reason of  hardship,  and  his  choice  of  the  RE-4  code  was  clearly 
supported  by  the  applicant’s  military  record,  which  shows  a  history  of  poor 
performance  and  conduct  and  several  page  7  (administrative  remarks)  entries.  
According to the Chief Counsel, the commanding officer’s decision to assign the 
applicant  an  RE-4  was  “clearly  within  his  discretionary  authority”  given  the 
applicant’s “marginal to poor performance.” 
 
 
On  August  18,  1998,  the  BCMR  sent  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 
advisory  opinion  to  the  applicant  with  an  invitation  to  respond  within  fifteen 
days.  The applicant did not respond. 
 

 
Article  1-G-5  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1000.6) sets as one requirement for reenlistment that the officer effecting dis-
charge recommend the member for reenlistment. 
 
 
Article 2-C-4 of the Coast Guard Manual for Preparing the Certificate of 
Release of Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214 (COMDTINST M1900.4C) 
requires officers effecting the voluntary discharge of a member for hardship to 
assign the member a reenlistment code of RE-3H (eligible for reenlistment except 
for disqualifying factor: hardship) or RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment). 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

Article  12-B-4d.(5)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  requires  members  who  are 
assigned an RE-4 to be “informed as to the reason for the determination and . . . 
to sign a statement on CG-3307 of the Personnel Data Record as having been so 
informed.” 
 
 
Article  12-B-53d.(2)  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which  the  applicant 
acknowledged  reading  when  he  signed  the  Page  7  entry  on  the  day  he  was 
discharged, includes the following information: 
 

Every  member  discharged  who  is  not  recommended  for  reenlist-
ment shall be informed that: 

 (a) 

 (b) 

Fraudulent  enlistment  in  any  branch  of  the  Armed 
Forces will undoubtedly be detected by fingerprints; 
and 
If concealment of any previous service and discharge 
results in enlistment, that individual will be subject to 
disciplinary authority. 

 

 

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

On March 21, 199x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
 
four  years. 
  On  October  16,  199x,  the  applicant  received  orders  for  a 
humanitarian assignment to xxxxxxxxxxxx, so that he could be closer to (within 
50  miles  of)  his  parents’  and  grandparents’  home.    On  March  28,  199x,  the 
applicant applied for a “dependency discharge.”  He submitted death certificates 
showing that both his father and grandfather had died in December 199x.  He 
stated  that  his  mother  and  grandmother  were  frail  and  unable  to  cope  either 
physically  or  emotionally  without  his  help  at  home.    He  stated  that  his  only 
brother was away from home at college and could not return without giving up a 
scholarship.    He  also  submitted  affidavits  from  his  mother  and  grandmother 
stating that they badly needed him at home.   
 

On June 30, 199x, the applicant received an honorable discharge from the 
Coast  Guard  by  reason  of  “hardship”  and  with  a  separation  code  of  KDB 
(hardship) and a reenlistment code of RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment).  On the 
same day, the applicant signed the following statement: 
 

I have read and been counseled on the contents of article 12-B-53 of 
the  Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1000.6  (series)  concerning 
my rights on separation from the Coast Guard.  I understand my 
rights  as  described  therein  and  have  had  all  of  my  questions 
answered. 

 
As  outlined  in  Article  12-D-3,  Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST 
M1000.6  (series),  I  understand  that  due  to  the  nature  and 
characteristic of my discharge that [sic] I will not be recommended 
for  reenlistment.    I  hereby  acknowledge  receipt  of  my  discharge 
documents. 

The  applicant’s  military  record  contains  the  following  entries  which  are 

 
 
indicative of the quality of his job performance: 
 
7/27/9x 
 
7/27/9x 

Page 7 noting unauthorized absence from assigned duty. 

 
9/30/9x 

 
11/9/9x 

 
4/16/9x 

 
4/15/9x 

Page 7 noting that on June 11, 199x,  the applicant had failed to pay 
a hotel bar tab. 

Page 7 commendation for assisting in set up and clean up of Coast 
Guard Day picnic 

Page 7 noting mark of “Not Recommended” for evaluation period 
“due  to  the  poor  condition  of  uniforms,  marginal  grooming  and 
sobriety issues which he has been slow to improve.  On occasion he 
has failed to treat his supervisors with the proper courtesy that they 
deserve  as  petty  officers.    He  is  beginning  to  understand  his  job 
requirements  quicker  and  with  fewer  repeated  mistakes.    This  is 
making work less frustrating for him and easier to work long hours 
without  tiring.    He  has  been  late  to  quarters  and  several  times 
showed  up  in  a  poor  uniform  because  he  had  been  out  late  the 
previous  night  partying.    Only  within  the  last  month  of  this 
evaluation  period  has  he  shown  a  consistent  improvement  in 
commitment to this ship and crew.  His level of performance is at 
the  minimum  requirements  for  an  E-2  and  does  not  meet  the 
requirements for recommendation to E-3.  Continued improvement 
as shown in the last month will increase his value to this command. 
. . .” 

Page  7  noting  misuse  of  government  phone  by  making  personal 
phone call costing $2.50. 

Page 7 noting mark of “Progressing” for evaluation period because 
the applicant “has not obtained the skill level he should be at for 
the allotted time he’s been onboard.  [He] needs supervision in all 
tasks  except  for  watchstanding  and  jobs  such  as  cleaning  or 
painting.  [He] does not retain the knowledge he learns during new 

tasks and apply them when asked to complete at a later date.  His 
goals  at  this  time  seem  to  be  not  on  his  job  at  hand  but  more 
towards how he can get out of the Coast Guard.  His supervisors 
will continue to work with him and give him the help he needs to 
obtain the necessary skills required for advancement.” 

DD  Form  214  shows  award  of  Commandant’s  Letter  of  Com-
mendation (for helping to clean up mud and debris after a flood), 
National  Defense  Service  Medal,  Coast  Guard  Marksman  Rifle 
Ribbon, and Coast Guard Marksman Pistol Ribbon.  Submissions of 
the applicant include a Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commenda-
tion for help during a flood. 

 
6/30/9x 

 

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 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 

The Board finds that,  given the applicant’s poor job performance, 
the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  acted  clearly  within  his  discretionary 
authority in assigning the applicant an RE-4. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  told  that  the  RE-4 
reenlistment code would not allow him to reenlist in the Coast Guard or another 
service once the cause of his hardship was resolved.  However, on the day of his 
discharge, the applicant signed a statement to the effect that he understood that 
he was not being recommended for reenlistment.  He also signed a statement to 
the effect that he had read Article 12-B-53 of the Personnel Manual.  

Although  the  applicant  might  not  remember  having  been  told  he 
would  not  be  recommended  for  reenlistment  in  the  Coast  Guard  or  any  other 
service,  on  the  day  of  his  discharge,  he  did  sign  a  statement  acknowledging 
having been informed of these facts.  

Therefore, the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed no error 

or injustice in discharging the applicant with an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXXX, 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

USCG, is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Robert J. Patton, Jr. 

 

 

 
Sharon Y. Vaughn 

 

 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf