DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1998-080 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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.  It was com-
menced upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request on May 11, 1998. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  11,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxxx  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to 
 
correct  his  military  record  by  changing  his  reenlistment  code  from  RE-3Y  (eli-
gible  for  reenlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor:  unsatisfactory  perform-
ance) to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  “was  discharged  unfairly  due  to  possible 
 
personality conflict and not given a proper chance to appeal the  process.”  He 
also alleged that his service record did not show that he was a “bad sailor” and 
that his supervisor at his unit, xxxxxxxxxxx, had called him a good worker. 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On February 11, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the requested relief due to 
lack of proof.  

 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the “basis for Applicant’s discharge is fully 
documented  in  his  record.  .  .  .  The  Applicant  on  the  other  hand  has  provided 
zero evidence in support of his application and has failed to meet his burden of 
proof to establish that error was committed.” 
  
 
The Chief Counsel attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum pre-
pared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  concerning  the  appli-
cant’s case.  CGPC stated that the applicant had received seven adverse admin-
istrative entries in his record during his two years on active duty.  “Given the 
serious discipline and performance problems exhibited, an early discharge was 
justified.”    He  was  therefore  discharged  for  “unsatisfactory  performance”  and 
assigned the reenlistment code RE-3Y.   
 

CGPC explained that the RE-3Y reenlistment code means that “the appli-
cant is eligible for reenlistment provided a recruiter is convinced that he is better 
mentally prepared to endure the rigors and discipline that are required of mili-
tary service.” 
 
 
the applicant’s case: 
 

CGPC alleged that all proper administrative procedures were followed in 

Under [the procedures of the Personnel Manual], three notification letters 
are given to the member.  The first places the member on probation; the 
second  informs  the  member  that  discharge  procedures  have  been  initi-
ated; and the third informs the member that they are being recommended 
for  discharge  and  that  they  have  the  right  to  an  appeal.    These  letters 
(they  are  not  CG-3307s)  are  not  required  to  be  placed  in  the  member’s 
official service record, and in this case, they weren’t. 

 
 
However, CGPC stated, because the third letter, notifying the member of 
his  right  to  an  appeal,  was  not  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record,  “it  can  not  be 
determined whether he did or did not receive notification.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 11, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views 
of the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On February 24, 
1999, the applicant responded. 
 
 
The applicant stated that in addition to the correction of his reenlistment 
code, he would like his separation code to be changed from JHJ.  He did not indi-
cate what separation code he would want to replace it. 
 

 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  his  record  aboard  the  xxxx  had  been 
good until a new commanding officer and  boatswain’s mate arrived on board.  
He  alleged  that  the  “Senior  Enlisted  Petty  Officers  began  to  play  games  and 
attempted to set me up.”  
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  after  he  was  placed  on  probation,  he  was 
evaluated  every  month  and  got  progressively  better,  until  his  marks  were 
straight  4s.    However,  his  commanding  officer  decided  to  discharge  him  after 
being woken by a phone call on the bridge, where the applicant was supposed to 
be on watch.  The applicant alleged that he had been given tasks to do on the 
mess  deck,  but  the  captain  thought  he  was  just  sleeping  or  watching  movies.  
Several officers on the ship told him that “there would be no RE code on [his] 
DD-214” and that he would get medical benefits and GI Bill benefits, as if he had 
completed four years instead of only two.  After leaving the xxxx, he discovered 
that he might not receive these benefits but was told that the time during which 
he could have appealed his discharge had passed. 
 
 
 

Finally, the applicant stated the following: 

I  do  not  deny  anything  that  was  placed  in  my  service  record.    I  made 
mistakes and I admitted to them.  I also did a lot of things right.  Things 
that are not stated.  I feel that my supervisor and department head were 
looking for someone to act as a slave.  Someone to do [their] dirty work, 
so they could just sit around. . . . 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  12.B.9.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST 
 
M1000.6A)  provides  the  procedure  for  discharging  enlisted  members  “whose 
performance demonstrates they cannot or will not contribute to supporting the 
Coast Guard’s missions.”   Article  12.B.9.c.  sets  the  criteria  for  separation  for 
unsatisfactory performance: 
 

To discharge a member as an unsatisfactory performer, commanding offi-
cers must clearly show the member has been given the proper direction to 
improve his or her performance and adequate time to demonstrate he or 
she could become a productive Service member. . . .  [T]he unsatisfactory 
performance  pattern,  the  appraisal  marks  described  [sic]  must  be  sup-
ported  by  thorough  documentation,  including  copies  of  Administrative 
Remarks,  disciplinary  action,  and  any  other    attempted  corrective  or 
training action.  Unsatisfactory performers generally can be identified by 
one or more of the following traits: . . .  
 

2.  After 30 June 1983, the member must meet the standards for an honor-
able discharge as described in Article 12.B.2.f. 

 
Article 12.B.2.f. includes the following among the criteria for an honorable 
 
discharge:  “[p]roper military behavior and proficient performance of duty with 
due  consideration  for  the  member’s  age,  length  of  service,  grade,  and  general 
aptitude”; and “a minimum characteristic average of 2.5 in each factor over the 
period of the enlistment.”  
 

Article  12.B.9.d.  requires  notification  of  unsatisfactory  performers as  fol-

lows: 

 
Commanding  officer  must  notify  in  writing  a  member  whose  perform-
ance record (12 months preferred in most cases, but as least six months 
for extremely poor performers) is such that he or she may be eligible for 
discharge under this Article and that his or her unsatisfactory perform-
ance may result in discharge if that performance trend continues for the 
next six months. . . . 

 
 
Article 12.B.9.e. requires members whose performance has not improved 
after six months to be notified in writing of the proposed discharge action.  This 
letter informs the member that he may submit a letter on his behalf.  Members 
are required to sign a statement acknowledging this notification and indicating 
whether they object or do not object to their discharge and whether they will or 
will not submit a letter on their own behalf. 
 
 
Article  12.B.9.d.2.  requires  members  who  are  discharged  by  reason  of 
unsatisfactory performance to be assigned either an RE-4 or an RE-3Y reenlist-
ment code.  The RE-4 is mandated when “the member’s unsatisfactory perform-
ance has primarily been related to personal conduct.”  The RE-3Y is mandated 
when “the member’s overall performance of duty is the reason for discharge and 
the  commanding  officer  determines  that  the  member  may  be  eligible  for 
reenlistment at a later date.” 
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 
 
On January 23, 199x, the applicant enlisted as a seaman apprentice in the 
Coast Guard for a period of four years.  On September 15, 199x, he was promoted 
to  xxxxx.    His  personnel  record  includes  the  following  administrative  entries 
reflecting on the quality of his performance: 
 
10/10/9x  A page 7 entry commends the applicant for his outstanding perform-
ance on board the cutter xxxx from September 30, 199x, to October 4, 

199x.  The applicant worked long hours and sacrificed liberty time to 
sand and paint the hull. 

 
1/7/9x  A page 7 entry commends the applicant for his actions during a sud-
den  severe  squall.    The  applicant  helped  save  a  boat  from  being 
smashed against a pier.  

 
2/4/9x  A page 7 entry commends the applicant for sacrificing his liberty time 

to assist a visiting cutter and its crew. 

[o]n numerous occasions he was unable to tie basic knots or demon-
strate safe and competent linehandling skills.  He was removed from 
working both line 1 and line 2 for failure to rig the heaving lines cor-
rectly and make heaving line throws to the pier during mooring sta-
tions.    Additionally,  during  boat  detail,  he  had  to  be  corrected 
numerous  times  for  having  his  hands  too  close  to  the  cleat  when 
working  the line  under tension.   He also  failed to  carry  out  simple 
tasks . . . . 
 

 
3/28/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant is eligible to wear the Coast 
Guard Sea Service Ribbon upon completion of one year of sea service. 

 
9/25/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant was counseled for “substan-
dard  work  performance.”    He  had  failed  to  complete  two  assigned 
tasks and could not tie a bowline knot when asked to do so.  The page 
7 also states that the applicant had “demonstrated a terrible deficiency 
in  seamanship  skills”  during  moorings  by  failing  to  work  the  lines 
safely and properly.  The page 7 warns that “[y]our nonchalant atti-
tude toward work will not be tolerated” and that “[i]f your standard 
of work does not improve, you will receive extra military instruction 
and may be put on performance probation which can result in cancel-
lation of ‘A’ school orders or for discharge for unsuitability.” 

 
11/1/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant had been assigned a mark of 
“Not Recommended” on his evaluation based on “unsatisfactory per-
formance, poor proficiency in basic seamanship skills and poor watch-
standing.” 

 
11/1/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant had received a mark of 2 (out 
of  7,  with  7  being  highest)  for  “Professional/Specialty  Knowledge,” 
“Quality of Work,” “Monitoring Work,” and “Setting an Example” on 
his performance evaluation.  The page 7 notes that  

 

[The applicant] consistently produced sub-standard work and failed 
to make any progress towards improving the quality of his work.  On 
two  occasions  he  was  caught  gundecking  logs  during  underway 
QMOW watches and he failed to complete assigned work . . . .  His 
nonchalant attitude towards work assignments and poor skills have 
resulted in him having to be closely supervised during all projects. 
. . .    He  failed  to  stand  proper  watches  as  QMOW  by  not  plotting 
DR’s, checking magnetic and gyro courses or using radar fixes when 
required. 
 
[The  applicant  sets]  a  poor  example  for  newly  assigned  personnel.  
Even though he was the senior seaman by time in grade, he failed to 
set an example of good work ethic and he failed to show sound sea-
manship  and  painting  practices  and  knowledge.    His  poor  watch-
standing  habits  while  having  another  person  break-in  under  him 
have  allowed  for  the  potential  for  juniors  to  develop  the  same  bad 
habits.    His  inability  to  perform  at  the  level  of  a  seaman  has  pre-
cluded him from being involved in training any newly assigned per-
sonnel. 

 
11/10/9x  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment at a captain’s mast for 
failure to obey orders, making false official statements, and “general.”  
His punishment of seven days’ restriction and extra duties and reduc-
tion  to  paygrade  E-2  was  suspended  for  a  four-month  probation 
period. 

 
11/10/9x  A  page  7  entry  that  is  virtually  identical  to  one  dated  November  1, 
199x, notes that the applicant received a mark of “Not Recommend-
ed” on a performance evaluation conducted after he went to mast and 
received nonjudicial punishment for poor performance. 

 
11/10/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant received a mark of “Unsatis-
factory”  for  conduct  on  the  performance  evaluation  conducted  fol-
lowing his nonjudicial punishment for his poor performance. 

 
3/24/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant received marks of “Unsatisfac-
tory” and “Not Recommended” on his performance evaluation for his 
four-month performance probation period.  The page 7 notes that 

 

[d]uring this marking period [the applicant’s] watchstanding abilities 
have  been  questioned  numerous  times.    Shortly  after  he  received 
non-judicial punishment for deficient watchstanding, and acting as a 
break-in  watchstander,  [the  applicant]  failed  to  complete  a  proper 
round by entering aft steering space.  Three months after regaining 
his qualification as inport crewman, he was again relieved as inport 

watchstander for failing to prioritize his responsibilities by failing to 
maintain a regular presence on the bridge and allowing the cellular 
phone, the ship’s primary means of communication while inport in 
xxxxxxx, to go unanswered for over an hour. . . . 

 
3/26/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant received marks of 2 for “Pro-
fessional/Specialty  Knowledge,”  “Quality  of  Work,”  ”Monitoring 
Work,”  “Responsibility,”  “Motivation  Towards  Advancement,”  and 
“Setting an Example” on his performance evaluation.  The page 7 lists 
numerous  instances  of  very  poor  performance  and  includes  the  fol-
lowing statements: 

During  this  marking  period  you  displayed  professional  knowledge 
equivalent  to  that  of  an  entry-level  Seaman  Apprentice.  .  .  .    As 
underway QMOW, your inconsistent watchstanding has caused the 
OOD’s to constantly monitor your fixes and log keeping. . . .  numer-
ous  projects  you  were  assigned  needed  to  be  redone.  .  .  .    Despite 
having  been  onboard  for  nearly  two  years,  this  exemplifies  your 
inability  to  follow  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  standing  orders  and 
maintain a proper watch without constant supervision. . . .  Despite 
being placed on performance probation and continuous training and 
counseling from your supervisors, your work and watchstanding did 
not  improve.  .  .  .  [Y]ou  ran  out  of  drop  cloths  and  .  .  .  climbed 
through  the  window  of  another  unit’s  storage  room  and  took  sup-
plies  from  them  without  permission.  .  .  .    Your  slipshod  work  and 
watchstanding reflect your inability to retain training and counseling 
which you have received throughout the marking period. . . .  Your 
inability to make a decision, even in the most routine matters which 
you have been assigned since reporting aboard, have also set a bad 
example and hindered unit progress. 

 

 

 
5/1/9x  A page 7 entry notes that the applicant was discharged by reason of 
unsuitability.  However, the applicant’s DD Form 214, dated May 4, 
199x,  shows  that  he  was  honorably  discharged  pursuant  to  Article 
12.B.9. of the Personnel Manual by reason of unsatisfactory perform-
ance with a JHJ separation code (“involuntary discharge . . . when a 
member  fails  to  perform  duties  and  assignments  satisfactorily”)  and 
an RE-3Y reenlistment code (“eligible for reenlistment except for dis-
qualifying factor: unsatisfactory performance”). 

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 sec-

tion 1552 of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The 
Chairman, acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recom-
mended  disposition  of  the  case  without  a  hearing.    The  Board  concurs  in  that 
recommendation.  

The applicant alleged that he was unfairly discharged due to a per-
sonality  conflict  and  that  he  was  not  given  an  opportunity  to  appeal  his  dis-
charge.  He also alleged that he was not a “bad sailor” and that one supervisor 
had  called  him  a  good  worker.    The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  to 
support these contentions.  He asked the Board to change his reenlistment code 
from  RE-3Y  to  RE-1  and  to  change  his  separation  code  from  JHJ  to  something 
else. 

The  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the 
Board  deny  the  requested  relief.    He  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  record  sup-
ported  his  discharge  for  unsatisfactory  performance  and  that  all  proper  proce-
dures had been followed. 

The  applicant’s  record  contains  several  page  7  entries  that  thor-
oughly  document  numerous  incidents  of  poor  performance.    A  page  7  entry 
dated September 25, 199x, notified the applicant that his performance was inade-
quate  and  could  lead  to  his  discharge.    In  November  199x,  the  applicant  was 
placed on performance probation for four months, but his performance did not 
improve  despite  extra  counseling  and  training  he  apparently  received.    The 
applicant’s record shows that he met the criteria for discharge for unsatisfactory 
performance under Article 12.B.9.c. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant pre-
sented  no  evidence  to  support  his  allegations  that  he  had  performed  well  and 
that  his  discharge  was  due  to  a  “possible  personality  conflict.”    Therefore,  the 
Board finds that the applicant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that his discharge for unsatisfactory performance was unjust. 

The applicant had no right to appear before an Administrative Dis-
charge  Board  prior  to  his  discharge  because  he  had  served  on  active  duty  for 
fewer than eight years.  Under Article 12.B.9.e. of the Personnel Manual, he had a 
right to attach a letter of objection to his acknowledgement of his notification of 
his  pending  discharge.    The  regulations  do  not  require  the  notification  or  the 
applicant’s acknowledgement to be entered into his personnel record.  The Board 
believes  that  the  regulations  should  require  that  these  letters  be  entered  into 
members’ personnel records so that there would be proof that the proper proce-

dures were followed.  Although the Coast Guard alleged that the proper proce-
dures were followed, it did not produce copies of the letters.  The Board finds 
that, even if the Coast Guard failed to notify the applicant of his right to attach an 
objection to his acknowledgement of his discharge notification, the error would 
have been harmless as the applicant’s discharge for unsatisfactory performance 
was fully justified by his record. 

Under Article 12.B.9.d.2., the applicant could have received an RE-
3Y or an RE-4 reenlistment code.  He was assigned the less harsh RE-3Y code, 
which allows him to reenlist if he can convince a recruiter that his performance 
will improve.  The Coast Guard did not err in assigning the applicant an RE-3Y 
reenlistment code. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard committed no error or injustice in dis-
charging  the  applicant  by  reason of  unsatisfactory  performance  with  an  RE-3Y 
reenlistment code. 

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

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

ORDER 

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXX, 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 
David M. Wiegand 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

USCG, is hereby denied.