DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-066 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR: Hale, D. 
 
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.    The 
application was docketed on February 17, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s 
completed application and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 17, 2005, is signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant, a former seaman apprentice (SA) in the Coast Guard, asked 
 
the  Board  to  correct  her  military  record  by  upgrading  her  RE-41  reenlistment 
code and changing the narrative reason for separation (unacceptable conduct) on 
her DD Form 214 so she can reenlist in the Coast Guard.  The applicant did not 
specify which reenlistment code or narrative reason she wanted to replace those 
in her Coast Guard record. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  she  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard 
because  she  “did  not  agree  with  the  practice  of  the  Coast  Guard  dumping  all 
trash, paint cans & brushed [sic] over the side of the ship into the Pacific Ocean. “  
She also stated, “That was my job.  I just couldn’t bring myself to do that.” 
 

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

 
Finally,  the  applicant  stated  that  she  now  understands  that  there  is 
nothing she can do to prevent the Coast Guard from dumping its trash at sea and 
that she would like to reenlist in the Coast Guard.   
 

  

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On June 25, 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 

 
four years.  After completing recruit training, she was assigned to a cutter.   
 

On September 23, 1996, a Page 72 was placed in the applicant’s record to 
document counseling about her obligation to be financially responsible and that 
future financial irresponsibility might result in disciplinary action. 

 
The  applicant’s  record  indicates  that  she  was  seen  by  her  ship’s  chief 
health services technician several times between October 22, 1996, and October 
26, 1996.  The applicant sought treatment for persistent motion sickness, and the 
record states that as of October 26, 1996, the “motion sickness was resolving.”  
 
 
On  October  26,  1996,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  placed 
another Page 7 in her record to document that she had been counseled about the 
difficulties and administrative burdens she had placed on her supervisors since 
her  arrival  onboard  the  ship.    Specifically,  the  Page  7  noted  that  one  of  her 
supervisors  was  forced  to  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  resolving  issues  with  her 
spouse’s overseas screening situation and that her failure to disclose the fact that 
her husband was incarcerated demonstrated her questionable integrity. 
 
On December 13, 1996, the applicant’s CO placed a Page 7 in her record to 
 
document counseling about her decision to place her name on a list to attend a 
Coast Guard school for radarman training, despite the fact that she had clearly 
expressed a desire to  terminate her enlistment.  The  Page 7 also states that the 
applicant  had  “demonstrated  neither  the  ability,  maturity,  nor  the  potential  to 
succeed as a petty officer.” 
 
On January 2, 1997, a physician with a United States Public Health Service 
 
(USPHS)  facility  in  Hawaii  evaluated  the  applicant.    The  physician’s  narrative 
summary  indicates  that  the  applicant  claimed  to  have  experienced  at  least  20 
episodes of sleepwalking and that one of these episodes had occurred while she 
was  on  a  ship.    He  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  somnambulism 
(sleepwalking).    He  also  noted  that  the  applicant  claimed  to  be  claustrophobic 
and that she had a problem with authority.  He recommended that the applicant 
be discharged under 12.B.12.3 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.   

                                                 
2 A Page 7 (CG-3307, Administrative Remarks) entry documents any counseling that is provided 
to a service member during their military career. 
3  Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  allows  a  commander  to  discharge 
members  for  the  “convenience  of  the  government”  and  12.B.12.a.12.  permits  discharges  for  a 

 
 
On  January  17,  1997,  the  applicant  submitted  a  memorandum  to  the 
Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), wherein she requested 
to be released from active duty because she was unable to cope with being away 
from  her  family.    In  her  request,  the  applicant  also  wrote  that  she  had  been 
disappointed seeing her shipmates throw garbage over the side of the ship, that 
she “can’t live in an environment that creates this much pollution,” and that she 
had  been  “reprimanded  by  my  superiors  for  refusing  to  help  dump  trash;  no 
matter  how  biodegradable  they  say  it  is.”    The  applicant  also  attributed  her 
inability to adjust to shipboard life to the fact that she was frequently seasick and 
sleepwalked once during her ship’s patrol.    
 
 
On January 31, 1997, three Page 7s were placed in the applicant’s record.  
The first Page 7 advised her that she had received a mark of “2” in the Stamina 
dimension  of  the  Enlisted  Performance  Evaluation  Form  (EPEF)  and  a  mark of 
“1” for her outwardly display of a lack of commitment to the Coast Guard, its 
mission, and the command and crew of her ship.4  The second Page 7 noted that 
the  applicant  had  received  a  mark  of  “1”  in  the  Loyalty  and  Adaptability 
dimensions on her EPEF because of her lack of commitment to the Coast Guard 
and her demonstrated inability to “adapt to the Coast Guard, shipboard life, and 
separation from her family.”  The third Page 7 advised her that she had received 
a mark of “Not Recommended” for promotion for the evaluation period ending 
January 17, 1997, because she did not possess the maturity, judgment, or positive 
attitude required of Coast Guard personnel in the next higher pay grade.   
 
 
Also  on  January  31,  1997,  the  applicant’s  acting  CO  informed  her  in 
writing that he had initiated her administrative discharge from the Coast Guard.  
The  CO  cited  her  apathy  and  attitude  as  his  reasons  for  recommending  her 
discharge.    The  endorsement  at  the  bottom  of  the  memorandum  indicates  that 
the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge  recommendation,  did  not 
desire  to  make  a  statement,  and  did  not  object  to  being  recommended  for 
discharge. 
 

On  February  11,  1997,  the  applicant’s  CO  sent  a  memorandum  to  the 
Commander, CGPC, wherein he recommended that the applicant be discharged 
from  the  Coast  Guard  pursuant  to  Articles  12.B.12.a.9.5  and  12.B.16.b.3.6  of  the 

                                                                                                                                                 
condition,  not  a  physical  disability,  that  interferes  with  the  performance  of  duty;  e.g., 
somnambulism.  
4  Enlisted  members  are  marked  on  a  scale  of  1  to  7  (7  being  best)  in  various  categories  of 
performance. 
5  Article 12.B.12.a.9. authorizes commanders to discharge members for motion sickness. 
6 Article 12.B.16.b.3. authorizes commanders to discharge members for apathy, defective attitude, 
and inability to expend effort constructively. 

Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  The CO recommended that she be discharged 
because she (a) demonstrated a lack of maturity and judgment, (b) experienced 
extended  periods  of  motion  sickness  while  on  board,  (c)  consistently 
demonstrated a negative attitude, and (d) had requested to be discharged from 
the Coast Guard because of her inability to cope with shipboard life, in addition 
to several personal reasons.  The CO also noted that a medical officer with the 
USPHS had recommended the applicant be discharged because she was unfit for 
sea duty.  

 
On February 28, 1997, CGPC notified the applicant’s CO that she was to be 
discharged from the Coast Guard no later than March 28, 1997.  CGPC directed 
that  the  applicant  receive  an  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability 
under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual, a JNC7 separation code, and the 
appropriate  narrative  reason  for  discharge  listed  in  the  separation  program 
designator (SPD) handbook. 

 
On  March  28,  1997,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the 
Coast Guard.  Her DD Form 214 indicates that she received a separation code of 
JNC,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  was 
“unacceptable conduct.”  

 
On January 16, 2002, the applicant petitioned the Discharge Review Board 
(DRB) for an upgrade of her reenlistment code and to have the narrative reason 
for  discharge  (unacceptable  conduct)  removed  from  her  DD  Form  214.    On 
November 19, 2002, the DRB unanimously voted to deny the applicant’s request.  
On  March  6,  2003,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  approved  the 
recommendation of the DRB. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  July  5,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard, 
 
relying on a memorandum from CGPC, submitted an advisory opinion recom-
mending that the Board grant relief.  The JAG recommended that (a) the appli-
cant’s SPD code be changed from JNC (unacceptable conduct) to KFV (condition, 
not a disability), (b) her reenlistment code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3G,8 and 
(c)  the  narrative  reason  for  discharge  on  her  DD  Form  214  be  changed  from 
“unacceptable conduct” to “condition, not a disability.”  
 
                                                 
7    The  separation  code  JNC  is  assigned  when  a  member  is  involuntarily  discharged  for  acts  of 
unacceptable conduct (i.e., moral and/or professional dereliction) not otherwise listed.  The only 
reenlistment code authorized is RE-4.  SPD Code Handbook, page 2-63. 
8  A  reenlistment  code  of  RE-3G  means  the  applicant  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  a 
condition, not a physical disability, that interferes with performance of duty. 

The  JAG  argued  that  he  failed  to  find  any  evidence  to  substantiate  the 
applicant’s discharge for moral and/or professional dereliction.  He stated that 
while  the  applicant  may  have  demonstrated  some  degree  of  unsatisfactory 
performance  during  her  enlistment,  “the  administrative  processing  of  the 
applicant’s  discharge  creates  doubt  as  to  whether  the  SPD  and  reenlistment 
codes issued were appropriate or a just application of Coast Guard policy.”  

 
The  JAG  also  noted  that  prior  to  the  applicant’s  request  for  separation, 
there  was  no  record  of  any  intent  to  discharge  her  for  unacceptable  conduct.  
Furthermore,  he  noted  that  although  CGPC  directed  that  the  applicant  be 
ultimately  discharged  for  unacceptable  conduct,  her  command  had  in  fact 
recommended  that  she  be  discharged  for 
immaturity,  apathy,  financial 
irresponsibility, motion sickness, and sleepwalking, none of which are classified 
as unacceptable conduct in the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  He added that 
because there was nothing in the record to support a discharge for unacceptable 
conduct, her discharge should have been classified “under a more specific Coast 
Guard  article  (i.e.,  apathy,  financial  irresponsibility,  or  condition,  not  a 
disability).” 

 
The JAG also stated that the applicant’s CO should not have initiated her 
discharge for inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes, or financial irresponsibility 
until  she  had  been  afforded  a  reasonable  probationary  period  to  overcome  her 
deficiencies.    The  JAG  added  that  the  applicant’s  CO  had  a  responsibility  to 
counsel her that a formal probationary period of at least six months had begun 
and  such  counseling  should  have  been  recorded  via  a  Page  7  entry.    The  JAG 
added that the applicant should have been informed that the discharge process 
would  be  initiated  unless  she  showed  significant  improvement  in  overcoming 
her deficiencies during the probationary period.  

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 12, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
Coast  Guard  and  invited  her  to  respond  within  30  days.    A  response  was  not 
received.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Article 12.B.12.a. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual provides that the 
Commander, CGPC, may authorize or direct an enlisted member to separate for 
the  convenience  of  the  government  for  a  number  of  reasons,  including  motion 
sickness and somnambulism (sleepwalking). 
 

 
Article 1.E. of the Coast Guard instruction for completing discharge forms 
states  that  a  member’s  DD  Form  214  should  show  a  separation  code  and 
reenlistment code “as shown in the Separation Program Designator Handbook or 
as stated by [CGPC] in the message granting discharge authority.”   
 

The  SPD  Handbook  includes  the  following  combinations  of  codes  and 

narrative reasons for separation, which might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

 

RE Code 

RE-4 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.16 

Narrative Reason 
SPD 
Code 
for Separation 
JNC  Unacceptable 

conduct 

 
Explanation 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when 
member performs acts of unacceptable 
conduct (i.e., moral and/or professional 
dereliction) not otherwise listed. 

 

 

KFV  Condition, not a 

disability  

RE-3G 
RE-3X9 
RE-4 

12.B.12 

Voluntary discharge when a condition, not a 
physical disability, interferes with the 
performance of duty (motion sickness, etc.).  

Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  Commander, 
CGPC, shall direct the discharge of enlisted members for unsuitability and that 
the  purpose  of  such  a  discharge  is  to  free  the  service  of  members  considered 
unsuitable  for  further  service  for  a  variety  of  reasons,  including  inaptitude, 
apathy, and financial irresponsibility. 

 
Article  12.B.16.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  commanding 
officers will not initiate administrative discharge for inaptitude, apathy, defective 
attitudes,  unsanitary  habits,  or  financial  irresponsibility  until  the  member  has 
been  afforded  a  reasonable  probationary  period  to  overcome  the  deficiencies.  
The  Article  also  states  that  the  member  shall  be  counseled  that  a  formal 
probationary  period  of  six  months  has  begun  and  such  counseling  shall  be 
entered on a Page 7.  The member must acknowledge this entry in writing.  The 
Article affords commanding officers the discretion to “recommend discharge at 
any  time  during  the  probationary  period  if  the  member  is  not  attempting  to 
overcome the deficiency.” 
 

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: 
 

                                                 
9 A reenlistment code of RE-3X means the applicant is eligible for reenlistment except for motion 
sickness or for being a non-swimmer. 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 
U.S.C. § 1552.  An application to the Board must be filed within three years after 
the applicant discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged error 
in  her  record.10    Although  the  applicant  filed  her  application  more  than  three 
years  after  she  knew  or  should  have  known  that  she  received  a  discharge  for 
unacceptable  conduct  and  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  she  filed  it  within  three 
years  of  having  timely  filed  an  application  with  the  DRB,  which  has  a  15-year 
statute of limitations.  Therefore, the applicant has exhausted her administrative 
remedies and her application is considered timely.11 

2. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The 
Chair, acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended 
disposition  of  the  case  without  a  hearing.  The  Board  concurs  in  that 
recommendation. 

3. 

The  applicant’s  CO,  citing  a  demonstrated  lack  of  maturity  and 
judgment, unfitness for sea duty, and a poor attitude towards the Coast Guard, 
recommended that she be discharged for unsuitability.  However, the applicant’s 
DD Form 214 indicates that she was discharged for unacceptable conduct (moral 
and/or  professional  dereliction).    Her  DD  Form  214  also  indicates  that  she 
received  a  JNC  separation  code  and  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  the  latter  of 
which permanently bars the applicant from reenlisting in the armed forces.  

 
4. 

The Board agrees with the JAG’s recommendations because there is 
nothing  in  the  applicant’s  record  to  support  a  discharge  for  unacceptable  con-
duct.    The  applicant’s  record  contains  several  Page  7s  documenting  problems 
with  financial  responsibility  and  her  lack  of  commitment  to  the  Coast  Guard.  
She was not recommended for promotion because her command determined that 
she  “did  not  possess  the  maturity,  judgment,  and  positive  attitude  required  of 
Coast Guard personnel in pay grade E-3 or higher.”  Moreover, there are several 
memoranda  in  the  applicant’s  record  that  clearly  state  that  her  discharge  was 
being recommended because of her apathy, attitude, and history of immaturity.  
The  record  abundantly  illustrates  that  the  applicant  was  ill  prepared  for 
shipboard life and her CO recommended that she be discharged for unsuitability.  
However, there is nothing in the record to warrant the applicant’s discharge for 
“moral and/or professional dereliction.” 

 
5. 

The JAG alleged that the applicant was not afforded sufficient due 
process  to  be  discharged  under  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The 
Board agrees.  The applicant’s CO recommended that she be discharged from the 
Coast  Guard  pursuant  to  Articles  12.B.12.a.  and  12.B.16.b.3.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  Under Article 12.B.16.c., members being considered for discharge due 
                                                 
10 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
11 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b); Ortiz v. Sec’y of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994). 

to  inaptitude,  apathy,  defective  attitudes,  unsanitary  habits,  or  financial  irre-
sponsibility must be afforded a reasonable probationary period to overcome the 
deficiencies.  The applicant was not afforded a probationary period and was not 
given the opportunity to overcome her deficiencies.  However, since the appli-
cant did not object to being discharged and the JAG is recommending that her 
record be corrected to show that she was discharged pursuant to Article 12.B.12 
of the Personnel Manual, instead of Article 12.B.16., the Board finds the error to 
be harmless.   
 

6. 

The JAG recommended that the applicant’s record be corrected by 
(a)  changing  the  SPD  code  from  JNC  to  KFV  (condition,  not  a  disability),  (b) 
changing  the  reentry  code  from  RE-4  to  RE-3G,  and  (c)  changing  the  narrative 
reason  for  discharge  from  “unacceptable  conduct”  to  “condition,  not  a  disabil-
ity.”  The Board agrees with the JAG’s recommendation that the applicant’s DD 
Form 214 should be corrected to reflect that she was discharged for a “condition, 
not a disability” with an RE-3G reenlistment code.  The applicant’s record con-
tains medical evidence stating that she had been diagnosed with motion sickness 
and  was  unfit  for  sea  duty.    In  addition,  the  applicant’s  CO  noted  that  her 
extended  periods  of  motion  sickness  had  contributed  to  her  unfitness.    If  the 
applicant  is  discharged  for  the  convenience  of  the  government  under  Article 
12.B.12.a.9. (motion sickness), her discharge will be characterized as a discharge 
due to a “condition, not a disability,” and the available reenlistment codes under 
the  SPD  Handbook  are  RE-3G,  RE-3X,  or  RE-4.    An  RE-3G  code  is  not  a 
permanent  bar  to  enlistment  but  requires  the  applicant  to  satisfy  a  recruiting 
command that she no longer suffers from the problem(s) that led to her discharge 
before she will be allowed to reenlist.  See Article 2.E.1.b.5. of the Coast Guard 
Recruiting Manual. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s record should be corrected to indicate 
that  she  was  discharged  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Manual with an SPD code of KFV and a reenlistment code of RE-3G.  
In addition, the narrative reason for discharge should be changed to “condition, 
not a disability.”  

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of her military record is granted as follows: 

 
Block 25 of her DD Form 214 shall be corrected to show Article 12.B.12. of 
the Personnel Manual as the separation authority. 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Block 26 shall be corrected to show KFV as the separation code. 

Block 27 shall be corrected to show RE-3G as the reenlistment code. 

Block  28  shall  be  corrected  to  show  “Condition,  Not  a  Disability”  as  the 
narrative reason for separation. 
 
The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD 214 reflecting these 
corrected entries. 
 
No copy of the Final Decision shall be placed in her record. 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Elizabeth F. Buchanan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
  Darren S. Wall