DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-040 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxx, SR (former) 
   

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed the 
case  on  January  20,  2006,  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  September  28,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  seaman  recruit  (SR;  pay  grade  E-1)  who  served  a  little 
more  than  four  months  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by 
upgrading his reenlistment code from RE-4 (ineligible for reenlistment) to RE-3 (eligible 
for reenlistment except for a disqualifying factor).1  The applicant stated that he wants 
his reenlistment code upgraded so he can enlist in the Army Reserve.  He stated that he 
now realizes that he made poor choices when he was in the Coast Guard but that his 
problems ”were linked to immaturity and alcohol abuse.”  He also stated that since his 
discharge  in  1988,  he  has  strived  to  be  a  responsible  person  and  that  he  has  held  the 
same supervisory position for the past five years.  He did not explain why he waited 
more than 16 years before filing his application. 
 

                                                 
1  The  Board  presumes  that  the  applicant  would  prefer  that  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code  be 
upgraded to RE-1, which would make him eligible for reenlistment in any of the Armed Forces. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  September  9,  1987,  at  the  age  of 
twenty-one.  After completing recruit training he was assigned to the USCG Air Station 
Sitka in Sitka, AK.  

 
On December 20, 1987, the applicant was admitted to the hospital after becoming 
intoxicated  and  cutting  his  wrists  in  an  apparent  suicide  attempt.    The  treating 
physician  noted  that  the  wounds  to  the  applicant’s  wrists  were  superficial,  that  he 
suffered  from  alcohol  abuse,  and  that  he  reported  a  history  of  poor  performance  in 
being compliant with authorities.  He was released from the hospital on December 22, 
1987, with a diagnosis of being a “problem drinker.”  The attending physician did not 
consider the applicant to have a psychological problem, that would disqualify him from 
further military service. 

 
On December 23, 1987, the applicant’s acting commanding officer (CO) placed a 
Page 72 in the applicant’s record to document counseling about the December 20, 1987, 
alcohol  incident.    The  acting  CO  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  diagnosed  as  a 
problem  drinker  and  that  he  would  be  referred  to  an  appropriate  medical  facility  for 
further  screening  and  treatment.    The  acting  CO  also  counseled  the  applicant  that  he 
was “prohibited from drinking alcohol” and advised him that “any evidence of alcohol 
consumption  in  the  future  will  be  considered  to  be  a  second  alcohol  incident  and 
discharge  proceedings  per  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  [Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual]  
(unsuitability) would be taken.” 

 
On  December  31,  1987,  the  applicant  was  discovered  drinking  alcohol  in  his 
room in violation of his CO’s written order to refrain from drinking alcohol.  He was 
charged  with  violating  Article  92  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  for 
failing  to  obey  a  lawful  written  order  issued  by  a  commissioned  officer.    He  was 
awarded  non-judicial  punishment3  (NJP)  of  reduction  to  E-1  and  forfeiture  of  $306.00 
for two months (suspended for six months).  

 
On  January  13,  1988,  a  Page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record  counseling 
him that he was being recommended for discharge from the Coast Guard for his second 
alcohol incident of December 31, 1987. 
 

 
On  January  17,  1988,  the  applicant  was  charged  with  violating  Article  134  and 
Article 19 of the UCMJ for drunk and disorderly conduct and for violating two written 
                                                 
2 A Page 7 entry documents any counseling that is provided to a service member as well as any 
other noteworthy events that occur during that member’s military career. 
3  Article  15  of  the  UCMJ  provides  NJP  as  a  disciplinary  measure  that  is  more  serious  than 
administrative corrective measures but less serious than trial by court martial.  

orders prohibiting consumption of alcohol and possession of alcohol in his room.  He 
was  awarded  NJP  of  45  days’  restriction  and  21  days  of  extra  duty.    The  suspended 
punishment  from  the  December  31,  1987,  NJP  was  vacated  and  the  punishment  was 
executed.   

 
On  January  20,  1988,  another  entry  was  made  on  the  January  13,  1998,  Page  7 
documenting  that  the  applicant  was  being  recommended  for  discharge  for  his  third 
alcohol incident which occurred on January 17, 1988. 

 
 

 

On January 21, 1988, the applicant’s CO issued a memorandum to the applicant 
notifying him that he was being recommended for discharge.  In signing the memo, the 
applicant acknowledged discharge notification, waived his right to make a statement, 
and waived his right to consult with a lawyer.  On this same date, the CO attached this 
memo  to  a  memorandum  to  the  Commandant  wherein  he  recommended  that  the 
applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability because of his 
third alcohol incident.   
 

On  February  9,  1988, the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    He 
received  a  discharge  “under  honorable  conditions,”  a  separation  code  of  JMG 
(unsuitability  –  alcohol  abuse),  and  “unsuitability”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation.  The record indicates that the applicant received an RE-4 reenlistment code 
(ineligible to reenlist).  He had served in the Coast Guard for four months and twelve 
days. 

 
Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  petitioned  the 
Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  to  upgrade  his  discharge  from  “general”  to 
“honorable.”    On  August  3,  1993,  the  DRB  disapproved  the  applicant's  request.    On 
September  29,  1993,  the  Commandant  reviewed  the  DRB’s  decision  and  approved  its 
findings. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 18, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s 
request.   
 

The JAG relied on a memorandum from the Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC)  concerning  the  applicant’s  request.    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  request 
should be denied because it is untimely and because he has failed to “substantiate any 
justification  for  the  delay  in  presenting  this  case.”    Notwithstanding  the  timeliness 
issue, CGPC alleged that the applicant’s discharge was in accordance with Coast Guard 

policy and that the applicant acknowledged his rights and waived his right to consult 
with a lawyer.  CGPC indicated that “during the course of his four month and twelve 
day enlistment, he was involved in three alcohol incidents, awarded NJP twice, and his 
conduct was contrary to good order and discipline.”  Finally, the CGPC argued that the 
applicant’s  RE-4  reenlistment  code  is  prescribed  for  his  discharge  and  character  of 
service, and that it would be inconsistent to assign a reenlistment code other than RE-4 
in conjunction with a general discharge.    
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  June  2,  2006,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  20  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  contains  the  regulations 
regarding  alcohol  abuse  by  Coast  Guard  members.    Article  20.A.2.d.  states  that  an 
alcohol incident is “any behavior, in which alcohol is determined, by the commanding 
officer, to be a significant or causative factor, that results in the member's loss of ability 
to  perform  assigned  duties,  brings  discredit  upon  the  Uniformed  Services,  or  is  a 
violation  of  the  UCMJ,  Federal,  State,  or  local  laws.    The  member  need  not  be  found 
guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment for 
the behavior to be considered an alcohol incident.” 
 
 
Article  20.B.2.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  first  time  a  member  is 
involved  in  an  alcohol  incident,  except  those  described  in  Article  20.B.2.f.,  the 
commanding  officer  shall  ensure  counseling  is  conducted  and  recorded  on  a  Page  7 
entry in the member’s personal data record (PDR), acknowledged by the member, and a 
copy sent to CGPC. 
 
Article  12.B.2.h.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “[e]nlisted  members 
 
involved  in  a  second  alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation  in 
accordance with Article 12.B.16.” 
 

Article 12.B.2.i. of the Personnel Manual states that “[e]nlisted members involved 

in a third alcohol incident shall be processed for separation from the Service.” 
 

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: 
 

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

1. 

 
§ 1552.   The application was untimely. 
 

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant  discovered  or  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.    10 
U.S.C. § 1552.  An applicant has 15 years from the date of discharge to apply to the DRB 
for an upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant applied to the DRB approximately eight 
years  after  his  discharge,  and  the  DRB  issued  its  final  decision  on  August  3,  1993.  
According to Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the BCMR’s three-
year  statute  of  limitations  begins  to  run  at  the  conclusion  of  DRB  proceedings  for  an 
applicant who is required to exhaust administrative remedies by applying to the DRB 
before  seeking  redress  from  the  BCMR.    The  Chair  received  the  applicant’s  BCMR 
application on December 27, 2005, and therefore, it was untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-year statute 
of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in the 
interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  Board  should  consider  the 
reason  for the  delay  and  conduct  a  cursory review  of  the  merits of  the  case.    Allen  v. 
Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  The applicant has not offered any explanation 
of why he waited so long to file his application, nor has he provided any basis on which 
to excuse his untimely application.   

 
4. 

5. 

 
The  applicant  requested  an  upgrade  of the reenlistment  code  on his  DD 
214 so he can enlist in the Army Reserve.  Notably, the applicant did not allege that the 
Coast Guard committed any error or injustice when it discharged him following three 
alcohol  incidents.    The  applicant  merely  states  that  his  problems  ”were  linked  to 
immaturity and alcohol abuse.”  
 
 
The  record  indicates  that  after  the  applicant’s  first  alcohol  incident  on 
December 20, 1987, in which he became intoxicated and cut his wrists, he was properly 
counseled  pursuant  to  Article  20.B.2.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  Page  7  that 
documented this alcohol incident indicates that he was referred for alcohol screening, as 
required  under  Article  20.A.2.e.    The  applicant  was  involved  in  a  second  alcohol 
incident  on  December  31,  1987,  in  violation  of  his  CO’s  explicit  order  to  refrain  from 
drinking.    The  Page  7  that  documented  the  second  alcohol  incident  indicates  that  he 
was counseled that he was being recommended for discharge by reason of unsuitability.  
On  January  17,  1988,  the  applicant  experienced  his  third  alcohol  incident  when  he 
created  a  disturbance  with  his  drunk  and  disorderly  conduct.    The  Page  7  that 
documented  the  third  alcohol 
indicates  that  the  previous  discharge 
recommendation  was  being  cancelled  and  that  he  was  being  recommended  for 
discharge  by  reason  of  his  third  alcohol  incident.    The  record  indicates  that  the 
applicant received all due process with respect to his discharge.  An RE-4 code is the 
only reenlistment code authorized for members discharged due to alcohol abuse. 

incident 

 

 6. 

 Accordingly,  due  to  the  length  of  the  delay,  the  lack  of  a  persuasive 
reason  for  not  filing  his  application  sooner,  and  the  lack  of  probable  success  on  the 
merits of his claim, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the 
untimeliness in this case.  The application should be denied because it is untimely. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  SR  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 H. Lee Einsel, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger