DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-163 
 
 
   

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.  It was docketed on September 14, 
1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  18,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his military record 
 
by  changing  his  reenlistment  code  from  RE-4  (ineligible  for  reenlistment)  to  RE-3 
(eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor)  so  that  he  can  enlist  in  the 
Army. 
 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE APPLICANT 

 
The applicant alleged that he was discharged on July 28, 199x, because he had an 
 
“inappropriate relationship” with a female member at their duty station.  He admitted 
that he had made a mistake but argued that he should be given another chance to serve 
his country.  He pointed out that both he and the female member were unmarried, so 
no  adultery  was  committed.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  has  spoken  with  Army 
recruiters who would like to enlist him.  He alleged that if his reenlistment code were 
RE-3, the Army would grant him a waiver to allow him to reenlist. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On xxxx, 199x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years.  
One year later, he was advanced from seaman (pay grade E-3) to xxxxxx pay grade E-4).  
He was stationed in xxxxxxx. 
 
 
On  March  25,  1998,  the  officer-in-charge  (OIC)  at  Station  xxxxxx  made  an 
administrative (page 7) entry in the applicant’s record indicating that he had failed to 
qualify  as  a  boat  engineer  for  the  41-foot  UTB.    The  OIC  wrote  that  the  applicant 
“worked on the vessel on two separate occasions, and has failed to take the extra time to 
complete the most basic of engineering qualifications: the system drawings.”  The OIC 
also faulted him for not seeking assistance or additional time to qualify.  He also noted 
that the applicant’s failure to qualify “prohibited this station [from meeting] its opera-
tional commitments” because it left the station with only two qualified boat engineers to 
run the station that spring. 
 
 
On  April  1,  1998,  the  OIC  and  the  acting  Group  Commander  signed  a  page  7 
entry for the applicant’s record indicating that he had received a mark of 3, meaning 
“not recommended,” for the evaluation period.  The page 7 notes that he could not be 
advanced to xxx until his marks improved. 
 
 
On April 20, 1998, the OIC made another page 7 entry in the applicant’s record 
indicating that he had failed to submit a progress report that he had been assigned to 
complete  on  April  10,  1998.    The  page  7  indicates  that  the  applicant  “did  not  have  a 
good  reason”  for  failing  to  complete  the  report  and  that  any  further  failures  would 
result in disciplinary action. 
 
 
On  May  6,  1998,  the  OIC  made  another  page  7  entry  in  the  applicant’s  record 
documenting  counseling  concerning  the  applicant’s  “negative  attitude,  disparaging 
remarks about the Coast Guard including this unit, and lack of leadership.”  The page 7 
documented  two  occasions  upon  which  the  applicant  made  very  negative  comments 
about the station and the Service to subordinates.  He was warned that “[a]ny further 
actions along this same course will result in disciplinary action.” 
 
 
On May 18, 1998, the OIC made another page 7 entry in the applicant’s record.  
The  page  7  states  that  he  was  seen  driving  without  a  seatbelt.    It  also  states  that  the 
applicant had “received several negative [page 7s] over the last couple of months and 
this is another indication that [the applicant is] unwilling to abide by Coast Guard rules 
and regulations including the Standing Orders of this station.  Any further disregard for 
rules and regulations will result in disciplinary action.”   
 
 
On  May  26,  1998,  the  applicant  appeared  before  a  captain’s  mast.    He  was 
charged with and found guilty of two violations of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) for engaging in prohibited sexual activity and for dereliction of 
duty because he had engaged in sex with a female seaman apprentice while on duty at 

the station between March 16, 1998, and May 8, 1998.  He was also found guilty of com-
mitting sodomy with her, a violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ, while in a xxxxxxxx.  
The applicant was demoted to xxxxxx pay grade E-3). 
 

On June 18, 1998, the commander of Group xxxx notified the applicant that he 
was being recommended for an honorable discharge due to misconduct.  The basis for 
the  discharge  was  cited  as  “misconduct—sexual  perversion,  other  indecent  acts  or 
offenses; specifically, that you performed sodomy with a female member of the crew of 
Station xxx in an xxxxx in a public place and because you had sexual intercourse with 
the same female aboard station grounds in a duty room while in a duty status.”  The 
applicant signed a statement indicating that he had been notified of this recommenda-
tion and did not object to it or wish to submit a statement on his own behalf. 
 
On  June  24,  1998,  the  commander  of  Group  xxxxx  recommended  to  the  Coast 
 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  that  the  applicant  be  honorably  discharged  “by 
reason of misconduct for indecent acts or offenses.”  The group commander described 
the applicant’s offenses and wrote that he “has shown a complete disregard for Coast 
Guard regulations and a total lack of judgment and professionalism.  Additionally, he 
has exhibited a serious lack of leadership skills.” 
 
 
On June 29, 1998, CGPC ordered that the applicant be honorably discharged by 
July 28, 1998, by reason of misconduct due to sexual perversion under Article 12.B.18 of 
the  Personnel  Manual  with  a  separation  code  of  JKL.    This  separation  code  means 
“involuntary discharged directed by established directive (no board entitlement) when 
a member has engaged in sexual perversion including but not limited to (1) lewd and 
lascivious acts, (2) sodomy, (3) indecent exposure, (4) indecent acts with or assault upon 
a child, (5) other indecent acts or offenses.” 
 
 
On  xxxxx,  199x,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged.    His  separation  code 
was  JKL,  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  was  “misconduct,”  and  his  reenlistment 
code was RE-4. 
 

On April 5, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 

 
opinion recommending that the Board deny relief for lack of merit.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s discharge was proper and that no 
injustice or procedural or substantive errors were committed.  With less than eight years 
of  active  service,  he  argued,  the  applicant  was  not  entitled  to  an  administrative  dis-
charge board.  He was entitled to submit a statement on his own behalf, but he chose 
not to do so or to object to his discharge. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant failed to prove that his commanding 
officer erred or committed any injustice in  assigning him the RE-4 reenlistment code.  
The RE-4 is the only reenlistment code permitted for members discharged due to mis-
conduct.    Moreover,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  “[a]bsent  strong  evidence  to  the  con-
trary, government officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, law-
fully,  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). 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 6, 2000, the BCMR sent a copy of the Chief Counsel’s advisory opinion 
to the applicant with an invitation to respond within fifteen days.  On April 25, 2000, 
the applicant responded.  He asked the Board to give him a second chance to serve his 
country by serving in the Army.  He stated that he is married now, with children, and 
that he is a hard worker with a steady job.  He alleged that he would not make the same 
mistakes again if he were allowed to join the Army.  He also alleged that he was never 
informed of his right to appeal his conviction at mast or of his right to submit a state-
ment protesting his discharge.  He argued that his demotion in rank from xxx to xxx 
was  sufficient  punishment  for  his  mistakes  and  that  he  should  not  have  been 
discharged. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 1-G-5 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6) sets 
 
as one requirement for reenlistment that the officer effecting discharge 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 offi-
cers effecting the discharge of a member for misconduct to assign the member an RE-4 
reenlistment code (not eligible for reenlistment).  RE-3 codes, which permit members to 
be reenlisted if the disqualifying factors that caused their discharge no longer exist,1 are 
not authorized for anyone discharged by reason of misconduct. 

 

 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

                                                 
1  Examples of RE-3 codes are the RE-3Y, for unsatisfactory performance; the RE-3X, for non-swimmers; 
and the RE-3U, for minors. 

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 the applicant’s record  of poor performance and mis-
conduct adequately supports his discharge by reason of misconduct and the JKL sepa-
ration code he was assigned. 

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

1. 

 
2. 

  
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 
 

The applicant alleged that he was not told of his right to appeal his con-
viction at mast or of his right to submit a statement on his own behalf when he was rec-
ommended for discharge.  However, the applicant has  not contested the result of his 
mast (demotion to xxx) and indicated that he considered his demotion due punishment.  
In addition, his record contains a form with his signature showing that he waived his 
right to submit a statement and did not object to his discharge.  

The RE-4 reenlistment code is the only reenlistment code authorized for 
members discharged by reason of misconduct.  Although the applicant admirably wish-
es to serve his country again by joining the Army, he has failed to prove that the Coast 
Guard committed an error or injustice by assigning him an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
 

 

ORDER 

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

 

 
Sharon Y. Vaughn 

 

 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

hereby denied.