FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The application was filed on July 
13,  1999,  and  completed  on  May  1,  2000,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  military 
records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated March 22, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-157 
 
 

 
 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his military record 
by changing his reenlistment (RE) code from RE-3L (entry level separation; must have 
waiver to reenlist) to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).  He alleged that he was wrongly 
discharged and assigned an RE-3L reenlistment code due to a misunderstanding about 
information on his enlistment papers.  He alleged that he did not report any arrests on 
his  enlistment  papers  because  he  did  not  know  his  juvenile  record  was  “valid.”    In 
addition,  he  alleged  that  he  admitted  having  used  marijuana  a  different  number  of 
times to a psychologist from the number of times he reported on his enlistment papers.  
He argued that these are both “petty reasons to be discharged” and asked to be given 
another opportunity to serve in the military.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

On  April  14,  199x,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard.   On  that  day,  he 
signed  a  DD  1966  enlistment  form,  denying  having  ever  used  illegal  substances.    He 
wrote  his  initials  beside  the  “no”  response  for  the  question  “Have  you  ever  tried  or 

used  or  possessed  any  narcotic,  …  or  cannibis  (to  include  marijuana  or  hashish)  … 
except as prescribed by a licensed physician?”  Directly underneath that question and 
response, he signed a certification stating that the information on the form was true and 
that  he  knew  that,  if  the  information  were  proved  false,  he  could  receive  a  less  than 
honorable discharge.  The form provides space for a recruit to explain “yes” responses, 
and three of the applicant’s responses to other questions are explained. 
 

The next day, April 15, 199x, he signed an SF-93 medical history form, admitting 

to the use of illegal substances.   
 

On May 1, 199x, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard.  He was 
assigned an “uncharacterized” discharge, an RE-3L reenlistment code, and a JGA sepa-
ration code, which reflects an involuntary discharge “when a member has inability, lack 
of effort, failure to adapt to military or minor disciplinary infractions during the first 
180 days of active military service.”  The narrative reason for separation shown on his 
discharge form DD 214 is “entry level separation.”  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On November 8, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  dismiss  the  applicant’s  case  for  failing  to 
exhaust administrative remedies or deny relief for lack of merit.  
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the case should be dismissed because the appli-
 
cant  has  not  exhausted  his  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  Discharge 
Review  Board  (DRB)  for  “a  change  in  the  character  of,  and/of  reason  for,  the  dis-
charge.”  He argued that the applicant’s “premature application to the BCMR deprives 
the Coast Guard of opportunities to develop the relevant factual record and review its 
own actions.”  
 
Regarding the merits of the application, the Chief Counsel argued that the appli-
 
cant has not submitted any evidence in support of his allegation that would overcome 
the presumption that Coast Guard officials acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith 
in carrying out their duties with respect to his discharge. 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 
Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  “uncharacterized”  “entry  level”  discharges  are  proper  for 
members discharged within 180 days of enlistment under Article 12.B.20.a. of the Per-
sonnel Manual and that the applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard commit-
ted any procedural or substantive error in discharging him. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

 
On  November  9,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s  advisory 
opinion to the applicant with an invitation to respond within 15 days.  The applicant 
responded on December 23, 2000. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he did not agree with the Chief Counsel’s recommenda-
tion.  He said that the difference between the forms he signed on April 14 and 15, 199x, 
was a simple mistake and that he “didn’t intentionally try to mislead the Coast Guard 
in  any  way.”    Moreover,  he  alleged  that  at  the  time  of  his  discharge,  he  was  told  he 
could reenlist at any time.  However, when he tried to reenlist, the recruiter refused to 
consider getting a waiver for him. 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 51.3, a “former member may apply to the DRB for a change in 

the character of, and/or the reason for, the discharge.”  
 
 
Article 12.B.20 of the Personnel Manual provides that the commanding officer of 
the Coast Guard Training Center is authorized to award “uncharacterized” discharges 
for members who have completed fewer than 180 days of active service and who have 
“demonstrated poor proficiency, conduct, aptitude or unsuitability for further service 
during  the  period  from  enlistment  through  recruit  training.”    Article  12.B.20.e.  states 
that “an uncharacterized discharge will be used for most recruit separations, other than 
for  disability.”    Article  12.B.20.f.  states  that  such  discharges  “should  not  be  initiated 
until  the  member  has  been  counseled  formally  concerning  deficiencies  and  has  been 
afforded  an  opportunity  to  overcome  those  deficiencies  as  reflected  in  appropriate 
counseling or personnel records.” 
 
 
Article 12.B.18.b.(2) of the Personnel Manual authorizes the Commander of the 
Military  Personnel  Command  to  discharge  an  enlisted  member  for  misconduct  upon 
discovery that the member “[p]rocure[d] a fraudulent enlistment, induction, or period 
of  active  service  through  any  deliberate  material  misrepresentation,  omission  or  con-
cealment which if known at the time might have resulted in rejection.” 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook states that members who 
 
are  involuntarily  discharged  because  of  “inability,  lack  of  effort,  failure  to  adapt  to 
military  or  minor  disciplinary  infractions  during  the  first  180  days  of  active  military 
service” receive a JGA separation code and an RE-3L reenlistment code. 
 

The  SPD  Handbook  also  states  that  members  with  less  than  8  years  of  active 
service  who  are  involuntarily  discharged  because  they  have  “procured  a  fraudulent 
enlistment, induction, or period of military service through deliberate material misrep-
resentation, omission or concealment” shall be assigned a JDA separation code, an RE-4 
reenlistment code, and “fraudulent entry into military service” as the narrative reason 

for separation shown on their discharge forms.  Members may be assigned either an RE-
4  or  an  RE-3E  reenlistment  code  if  they  are  involuntarily  discharged  because  they 
“erroneously  enlisted,  reenlisted,  extended  or  [were]  inducted  into  a  Service  compo-
nent.” Such members are assigned a JFC separation code and “erroneous entry (other)” 
as a narrative reason for separation. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 

 
 
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 appli-
cable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

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

The Chief Counsel argued that the case should be dismissed for failure to 
exhaust  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  DRB  for  a  change  of  discharge.  
Under 33 C.F.R. § 51.3, veterans “may apply to the DRB for a change in the character of, 
and/or  the  reason  for,  the  discharge.”    However,  the  applicant  has  asked  only  for  a 
change in his RE code.  Although a change in the character of discharge ordered by the 
DRB may result indirectly in a change of RE code and the BCMR sometimes revises dis-
charges along with RE codes, veterans need not apply to the DRB before applying to the 
BCMR when their requests concern solely their RE codes.  Moreover, even if the BCMR 
denies  the  applicant’s  request,  he  may  still  seek  relief  by  applying  to  the  DRB  for  a 
correction of his character of or reason for discharge any time within 15 years of his date 
of discharge. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  and  assigned  an  RE-3L 
reenlistment code due to a mistake and misunderstanding on his enlistment papers.  He 
alleged that he did not intend to mislead the Coast Guard, although he admitted that 
information on his discharge papers concerning his use of marijuana and his criminal 
record was false.  However, his initials and signature on the DD 1966 indicate that he 
intentionally hid his previous drug use when he enlisted on April 14, 199x.  Moreover, 
he did so knowing that any false information on the form might result in a less than 
honorable discharge. 

Although the applicant could have been discharged for misconduct due to 
his fraudulent enlistment, under Article 12.B.20. of the Personnel Manual, it was within 
the discretion of the commanding officer of his training center to award him an “un-
characterized” discharge for poor conduct or unsuitability, along with a JGA separation 
code and an RE-3L reenlistment code.  These are the codes specifically designated for 
recruits in training who prove unsuitable for military service.  

5. 

Absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  Coast  Guard  officials  are  pre-
sumed to have acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith in carrying out their duties. 
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  applicant  submitted  no  evidence  indicating  that  the 
commanding officer of the training center erred or committed an injustice in discharg-
ing him with an RE-3L reenlistment code.   

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his 
commanding officer committed any error or injustice in discharging him with an RE-3L 
reenlistment code.  Although at least one military recruiter has apparently refused to 
seek a waiver for the applicant so that he can reenlist, that refusal does not prove that 
the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice with respect to his RE code. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 

 
 

 
 

hereby denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Murray A. Bloom 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 
Kathryn Sinniger