DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2005-056 
 
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. 
Xxx xx xxxx, SN (former) 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Hale, D. 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on January 25, 2005, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  22,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by upgrading her reenlist-
ment code (RE-4)1 so she can reenlist in the Coast Guard.  The applicant argued that 
the code should be upgraded because she was experiencing family problems and was 
under  duress  when  she  admitted  to  being  a  homosexual  in  an  effort  to  obtain  a 
discharge from the Coast Guard under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.  In support of 
her request, she alleged that: 

 
I  was  discharged  on  the  18th  of  March  1999 for violating  the  “Don’t  ask,  Don’t 
tell” policy.  The choice I made to do so is the greatest regret of my life.  That was 
over  five  years  ago.    As  I  have  grown  as  an  adult,  it  has  become  increasingly 
obvious to me that I am well suited for a career in the United States Coast Guard 
and that the decision I made as a young adult had consequences I was unable to 
comprehend at the time.  

 

                                                 
1 A reenlistment code of RE-4 means the applicant is “ineligible for reenlistment” into the Armed Forces. 

 
In her letter to the Board, the applicant also stated that she admitted to being a 
homosexual  because  family  and  health  problems  had  caused  her  to  “fall  into  depres-
sion” and that she had become very ill.  In addition, she alleged that she had “a severe 
personality  conflict  with  [her]  immediate  supervisor”  and  had  “exhausted  all  other 
avenues for transfer before my admission of homosexuality.”      
 
 
In  another  letter  to  the  Board,  the  applicant  stated  that  she  would  have  never 
violated the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy if it were not for the bias and disregard that 
she  experienced  at  her  last  duty  station.    Finally,  she  stated  “While  I  was  awaiting 
discharge  …  I  did  not  know  I  could  simply  retract  my  statement  and  remain  in  the 
Coast  Guard.    I  was  afraid  if  I  retracted  my  statement  that  punitive  measures  would 
have been taken against me for lying.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On August 5, 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  After completing 
recruit training, she was assigned to a cutter.  The record contains a handwritten note 
dated 23 Jan 99 stating “I [the applicant] spoke this afternoon with Chief [C], our CEA2, 
and admitted to him that I was gay.  I had a meeting with Chief and Mrs. [N] later that 
afternoon and told her the same thing.”   
 

The record also contains an undated, typewritten letter from Chief C, stating the 

following: 

 
On 23 January 1999 [the applicant] approached and asked to meet with me on a 
Command Chief issue.  During this meeting, [the applicant] confessed to being 
gay.    After  our  meeting  I  notified  the  Commanding  Officer,  LTJG  [N],  of  [the 
applicant’s]  disclosure.    After  notifying  Mrs.  [N]  we  then  met  with  [the 
applicant] where she again confessed to being gay.  This statement is true and 
accurate to the best of my knowledge. 
 
The  record  also  contains  a  typewritten  statement  from  LTJG  N  regarding  the 

admission made to her by the applicant.  The letter states: 

 
On Saturday January 23, 1999, the CGC [Coast Guard Cutter][S] was moored at 
ISC New Orleans in a Commission, Special Status.  On this day, MKC [C] (the 
[S’s] Command Chief) asked if he could speak to me.  He informed me that [the 
applicant]  made  the  statement  to  him  that  she  was  gay.    I  met  with  [the 
applicant] with MKC [C] in attendance.  I informed [the applicant] that MKC [C] 
had spoken to me regarding their talk earlier.  I explained to her that whatever 
she was going to tell me, she was obligated to tell the truth or she would be in 
violation of the UCMJ.  I then asked her if she would like to tell me anything and 

                                                 
2 Command Enlisted Advisor. 

she  said  to  me  “I  am  gay.”    I  informed  [the  applicant]  that  because  of  her 
admission,  I  would  be  required  to  start  administrative  proceedings  for  her 
discharge from the service.  She said that she understood. …  This statement is 
true to the best of my knowledge. 

 
 
On January 25, 1999, the Commander, Coast Guard Group Mobile, issued a letter 
informing  the  applicant  that  she  was  being  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  for 
homosexual conduct.  In his letter, the Commander noted that he had received credible 
information that she had made a statement indicating that she was homosexual.  The 
Commander indicated that the final decision on the type of discharge she would receive 
would  rest  with  the  Commander,  Personnel  Command.    The  letter  also  informed  the 
applicant that she had the right to submit a rebuttal and to consult with legal counsel. 
 
 
On  January  26,  1999,  the  applicant  submitted  a  response  to  the  Commander’s 
January  25,  1999,  letter.    In  her  letter,  the  applicant  acknowledged  that  her  discharge 
had  been  proposed  and  that  she  had  been  provided  the  opportunity  to  consult  legal 
counsel.  Finally, she indicated that she waived her right to a hearing, waived her right 
to counsel, did not object to being discharged from the Coast Guard, and did not wish 
to submit a statement on her behalf. 
 

 
On  January  27,  1999,  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Group  Mobile,  issued  a 
memorandum  to  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC), 
recommending  that  the  applicant  be  administratively  discharged  by  reason  of 
unsuitability.    In  support  of  his  recommendation,  he  noted  that  the  applicant  had 
voluntarily submitted a statement stating she was gay.   

 
In February 1987, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged by reason of 
homosexual  conduct  under  Article  12.E.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  authorized 
separation  code  was  HRB  (homosexuality)  and  CGPC  directed  that  the  appropriate 
narrative  reason  for  separation  should  be  determined  from  the  separation  program 
designator (SPD) handbook.  
 

On  March  18,  1999,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard for unsuitability with a separation code of HRB3 and an RE-4 reenlistment code.  

 
On  February  18,  2002,  the  applicant  petitioned  the  Discharge  Review  Board 
(DRB) wherein she sought a review of her discharge and an upgrade of her reenlistment 
code.  On August 27, 2002, the DRB unanimously voted to deny the applicant’s request.  
On December 11, 2002, the Commandant approved the recommendation of the DRB. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

                                                 
3  The  separation  code  HRB  is  assigned  when  a  member  is  involuntarily  discharged  after  admitting  to 
being a homosexual or bisexual. SPD Code Handbook, page 2-72. 

 
 
On  June  7,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  CGPC  and 
recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    The  JAG  argued  that  the 
applicant was properly separated after admitting that she was a homosexual.  The JAG 
further argued that the applicant was afforded the opportunity to a hearing before an 
administrative board and to submit a statement on her own behalf, both of which she 
unconditionally waived.   
 
 
her allegations that she was under duress when she admitted to being a homosexual.   

The JAG also stated that the applicant failed to provide any evidence supporting 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On or about June 8, 2005, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
to the applicant and invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

  
 
Article 12.E.1. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual states, in pertinent part, that 
under the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the armed services, the suitability of a 
person  will  be  judged  on  their  conduct  and  ability  to  meet  the  required  standards  of 
duty  performance  and  discipline.    A  member’s  sexual  orientation  is  considered  a 
personal,  private  matter  and  is  not  a  bar  to  continued  service  unless  manifested  by 
homosexual conduct.  The Personnel Manual further states that a member may only be 
separated if credible information about homosexual conduct exists.  Credible informa-
tion  does  not  exist  if  the  only  information  known  concerns  an  associational  activity, 
such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating 
with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes.   
 
 
Article  12.E.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a  service  member  shall  be 
separated  if  he  or  she  states  he  or  she  is  a  homosexual  or  bisexual,  or  words  to  that 
effect, unless there is a further approved finding the member has demonstrated that he 
or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage 
in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. 
 
 
The  SPD  Handbook  states  that  a  member  involuntarily  discharged  for  a 
homosexual admission shall receive a separation code of HRB and an RE-4 reenlistment 
code. 
 

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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely.  
 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

1. 

2. 

The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard because she made a 
verbal  admission  to  her  Commanding  Officer  (CO)  that  she  was  a  homosexual  in  an 
effort to get discharged from the service.  Although she claims that she was experienc-
ing family problems and was under duress when she made the admission, the applicant 

3. 

has  not  provided  any  evidence  of  duress  or  other  aggravating  factors  to  support  this 
allegation.  
 
The Board notes that the Coast Guard’s decision to discharge the applicant 
 
was not an arbitrary one.  On January 23, 1999, the applicant approached her Chief and 
freely admitted that she was a homosexual.  Later that day, the applicant volunteered 
the same admission during a meeting with her CO.  Furthermore, the applicant admits 
that she chose to violate the Coast Guard’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an effort to 
obtain a discharge.  The applicant actively sought a discharge by explicitly stating that 
she was a homosexual, and the Coast Guard discharged her accordingly.  Although the 
applicant now states that that the “decision I made as a young adult had consequences I 
was unable to comprehend at the time,” the Board is loath to grant relief and undo the 
applicant’s volitional admission and its consequences without evidence of duress, error, 
or injustice. 
 
 
 
The Board finds that the Coast Guard committed no error at the time of 
the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant openly claimed to be homosexual and clearly 
expressed  her  desire  to  be  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Coast  Guard 
informed her by written notice that she was being discharged for unsuitability and that 
she would be ineligible for reenlistment.  The Coast Guard also afforded the applicant 
the opportunity to seek legal counsel, but the applicant chose not to do so, and she was 
discharged pursuant to Article 12.E.3. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

  
4. 

5. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

The  application  of  former  SN  XXXXXXXXXX  xxx  xx  xxxx,  USCG,  for  the 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Frank H. Esposito 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
correction of her military record is denied.