DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-063 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX  
xxxxxxxxxxxxx,  SN/E-3 (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.  The Chair docketed the case on February 24, 
2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 19, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  seaman  (SN;  pay  grade  E-3)  who  served  a  little  more 
 
than  two  years  in  the  Coast  Guard  before  being  discharged  for  refusing  to  attend 
treatment for his alcohol abuse, asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his 
reenlistment  code  (RE-4  -  ineligible  for  reenlistment)  so  he  can  reenlist  in  the  Coast 
Guard.    The  applicant  stated  that  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  is  unjust  and  that  there 
“isn’t enough reason to justify such a code attached to my faithful and honorable time 
in service.  It is a hard lesson learned, but it should not prohibit me from making the 
military a career choice.” 
 

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submitted  three  letters  from 
individuals attesting to his character.  He submitted letters from his stepfather and two 
Coast Guard members who worked with the applicant at Group San Francisco.  

 
The applicant’s stepfather stated that 
 

I have seen him develop into the fine young man he has become.  I have 
always  known  him  to  be  courteous,  attentive  to  detail  and  willing  to  offer  a 
helping hand to those who need it. 
 

While [the applicant] was stationed in Yerba Buena Island, my wife and I 
went  to  San  Francisco  and  visited  with  [the  applicant]  for  three  days.    The 
personnel we met at the base spoke highly of him. 
 

Since [the applicant’s] return from his tour or service in the Coast Guard I 
have noticed a remarkable sense of increased maturity.  I believe this is due to his 
innate qualities, but I also attribute this to the level of training he received in the 
Coast Guard. 
 

[The applicant] has been a dedicated law-abiding citizen.  I have complete 

confidence that he would be a valuable asset to the Coast Guard if he rejoins. 
 
Storekeeper,  second  class  C  (SK2  C),  who  worked  with  the  applicant  at  Group 

San Francisco, stated the following in his letter supporting the applicant’s request, 

 

During  his  time  in  our  office,  [the  applicant]  showed  nothing  but 
determination  and  hard  work  throughout  the  office.    Out  of  the  three  strikers, 
[the applicant] was the hardest working, and most willing to learn the trades of 
being a storekeeper.  Whenever we tasked [the applicant] anything, whether it is 
SK work, or simply running around for us, he would finish it on or way before 
the time expected.  When he decided to put his name on the SK A school list, I 
knew he would not have any trouble getting through the course. 
 

Being  a  PO2  [petty  officer  second  class]  on  Group  San  Francisco  meant 
also  being  a  part  of  the  duty  rotation  for  Officer  of  the  Day  (OOD).    [The 
applicant] was a member of the gate guard watch, and one of the few to be fully 
Charlie qualified…  On many occasions [the applicant] would have duty on my 
OOD  days,  and  just  like  his  work  in  the  office  or  while  at  MAA  [Master  At 
Arms], he did not disappoint me in his production, or willing[ness] to do things.  
He would always volunteer for the watches members did not want, or stand by 
for anyone who needed a standby. 
 

I know [the applicant] has gotten himself into some trouble while serving 
in the Coast Guard, but I feel he was young, and in the wrong place at the wrong 
time.  I know he has learned from his mistakes and I feel he is one of the few 
people who deserve a second chance, and the Coast Guard can only benefit from 
him being allowed back in.  Not only will they be getting a hard worker, but a 
loyal one.  Honor, Respect, and Devotion [to] duty best describes [the applicant].   
 
SK2  F,  who  also  worked  with  the  applicant  at  Group  San  Francisco,  stated the 

following with respect to the applicant’s character: 

 

… [The applicant] worked under me during his time at our office.  I soon came to 
find out that [the applicant] was a hard worker and was very eager to learn the 
roles  and  responsibilities  of  a  Storekeeper.    He  was  very  reliable  and  I  could 
count on him to get the job done when I assigned him work.  His interaction with 
other people in our office and with various vendors over the phone [was] very 
professional.    I  believe  [the  applicant]  would  be  a  great  asset  to  any  office  he 
worked in. … 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 9, 2002.  On January 1, 2003, 
while  stationed  at  Coast  Guard  Station  Venice,  an  administrative  entry  (Page  7)1  was 
placed in his record documenting that he had been selected as the Station Venice Sailor 
of the Quarter.  The Page 7 states, inter alia, that the selection “recognizes your superior 
abilities as a Boatcrew Member as well as your outstanding performance as a member 
of the Deck Department.”  The Page 7 also states that his “unwavering desire to get the 
job  done  right  combined  with  your  eagerness  to  assist  your  fellow  crewmembers  has 
been an example for your peers to follow.” 

 
On January 16, 2003, another Page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record by the 
Chief,  Operations  Support  Branch  at  the  Training  Center  (TRACEN)  Petaluma, 
notifying him that he was being disenrolled from Food Service Specialist (FS) A school.  
The  Page  7  states  that  he  was  being  disenrolled  because  he  was  arrested  by  the 
California Highway Patrol for driving under the influence of alcohol.  The Coast Guard 
apparently did not document this arrest as an alcohol incident. 

 
On January 29, 2003, the applicant received a Letter of Commendation from the 
Commandant.    The  letter  stated  that  the  applicant  was  being  commended  for  his 
performance while assigned to the deck department at Coast Guard Station Venice.  The 
letter  noted  that  the  applicant  “participated  in  the  response  to  over  40  Search  and 
Rescue cases” and was instrumental in assisting in the rescue of a fishing boat crewman 
who  had  sustained  serious  injury  to  both  of  his  legs.    The  letter  further  noted,  “As  a 
member  of  the  boatcrew,  you  immediately  rendered  first  aid  and  acted  as  a  Spanish 
language  translator  ensuring  vital  information  was  passed  to  the  flight  surgeon.”    In 
addition, the Commandant noted that in the applicant’s eagerness to promote the Coast 
Guard, he had volunteered his time and gave demonstrations to the children at a local 
YMCA.   

 
On April 27, 2003, the applicant was stopped by security personnel at TRACEN  
Petaluma and it was determined that he was driving with a blood alcohol level of .09.  
On April 28, 2003, the Coast Guard issued a memorandum to the  applicant notifying 
him that his driving privileges on TRACEN Petaluma and all other military installations 
were being suspended for one year.  

 
On May 13, 2003, a Page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record documenting the 
April 27, 2003, incident.  The Page 7 noted that on April 29, 2003, he was evaluated by 

                                                 
1 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. 
 

the Command Drug and Alcohol Representative (CDAR) at TRACEN Petaluma.  The 
Page 7 further noted that the CDAR determined that the applicant met the diagnostic 
criteria for substance abuse.  Finally, the Page 7 noted that this was “being considered 
his first alcohol incident for documentation purposes” and that “per chapter 20 of the 
Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST  M100.6  (series),  any  further  incidents  may  result  in 
your separation from the U.S. Coast Guard.” 

 
On April 4, 2004, the applicant was arrested for public drunkenness.  On May 4, 
2004, another Page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record documenting the arrest and 
informing  him  that  “it  has  been  determined  that  this  be  classified  as  an  Alcohol 
Situation.”    The  Page  7  also  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  seen  by  the  TRACEN 
medical officer on May 4, 2004, who issued a diagnosis of alcohol abuse.  Finally, the 
Page 7 noted that on May 4, 2004, the applicant was offered treatment for alcohol abuse 
and that he declined that treatment.  The Page 7 includes a paragraph which states that 
“You  are  advised  that  by  declining  to  attend  and  complete  treatment  you  will  be 
recommended  for  discharge  from  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard.    Furthermore,  declining 
treatment  prior  to  discharge  may  disqualify  you  for  alcohol  treatment  by  the 
Department of Veterans Affairs in the future.”  The Page 7 is signed by the applicant.   

 
On  May  5,  2004,  the  applicant  was  notified  by  memorandum  from  TRACEN 
Petaluma  that  he  was  being  recommended  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability 
because  he  refused  treatment  for  alcohol  abuse.    The  memorandum  notified  the 
applicant that he had the right to make a written statement in response to the proposed 
discharge.  The applicant signed a “First Endorsement” to the May 5, 2004, letter and 
acknowledged that he was being recommended for discharge.  He also indicated that he 
did not object to an honorable discharge, did not want to make a statement, and did not 
desire to receive treatment for substance abuse. 

 
On  May  5,  2004,  TRACEN  Petaluma  sent  a  letter  to  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC) requesting authority to discharge the applicant for unsuitability due 
to a diagnosis of “alcohol abusive” and for refusing treatment. 

 
On  May  20,  2004,  CGPC  authorized  TRACEN  Petaluma  to  discharge  the 

applicant no later than June 18, 2004.   

 
On June 3, 2004, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant to 
Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    He  received  an  “honorable 
discharge,”  a  separation  code  of  JPD,2  and  “unsuitability”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation.  The record indicates that the applicant received an RE-4 reenlistment code.  
He had served in the Coast Guard for two years, one month, and 25 days. 
                                                 
2 JPD denotes an involuntary discharge directed by established directive when a member failed through 
inability  or  refusal  to  participate  in,  cooperate  in,  or  successfully  complete  a  treatment  program  for 
alcohol rehabilitation.  

 
Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant submitted a request to 
the Coast Guard’s Discharge Review Board (DRB) for the same relief requested from the 
BCMR.    On  August  31,  2005,  the  DRB  denied  the  applicant's  request,  stating  that  his 
discharge had been carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy.  However, the 
DRB recommended that the narrative reason for discharge listed on the applicant’s DD 
214  be  changed  from  “Unsuitability”  to  “Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure.”    On 
November  21,  2005,  the  Commandant  reviewed  the  DRB’s  decision  and  approved  its 
finding that the applicant’s discharge was proper. 

 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  June  20,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.    CGPC  argued  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  in  accordance  with  Coast 
Guard policy because he refused treatment for alcohol abuse and did not object to an 
honorable discharge.  CGPC also argued that the applicant’s RE-4 reenlistment code is 
proper  because  it  is  the  only  reenlistment  code  allowed  for  a  member  discharged  for 
alcohol rehabilitation failure. 
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 27, 2006, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    The  BCMR  did  not  receive  a 
response. 
 

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 [CO], 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (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.A.2.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “alcohol  screening”  is  an 
 
“evaluation  by  a  physician  who  has  attended  Addiction  Orientation  for  Health  Care 
Provider  training  or  who  has  equivalent  training  regarding  substance  abuse  and 

chemical  dependency,  clinical  psychologist,  or  a  DoD  civilian  equivalent  Counseling 
And Assistance Center counselor to determine the nature and extent of alcohol abuse.  
An evaluation by a Collateral Duty Alcohol Representative [CDAR] does not satisfy the 
screening requirement contained in this manual.”  The evaluation and recommendation 
for treatment are based on the answers provided by the member in an interview. 
 
 
Article  20.B.2.k.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  members  refusing  to 
undergo the treatment deemed necessary by the CO and a competent medical authority 
are normally processed for separation. 
 
 
The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  handbook  mandates  an  RE-4 
reenlistment  code  for  a  member  discharged  for  refusing  to  participate  in  a  treatment 
program for alcohol rehabilitation. 
 

 
 
 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

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

 
2. 

The  applicant  requested  that  the  reenlistment  code  on  his  DD  214  be 
upgraded  so  he  can  reenlist  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  stated  that  the  RE-4 
reenlistment code is unjust and it prohibits him from having a career in the military. 
 

3. 

The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  experienced  numerous  problems 
related to his alcohol consumption during his service in the Coast Guard.  In January 
2003,  he  was  disenrolled  from  A  School  because  he  had  been  arrested  by  the  local 
authorities for driving under the influence.  On April 27, 2003, the applicant was once 
again stopped by local law enforcement and was found to be driving while intoxicated.  
On April 28, 2003, he was referred to the Command Drug and Alcohol Representative 
(CDAR)  at  TRACEN  Petaluma  for  evaluation,  who  subsequently  noted  that  the 
applicant  met  the  diagnostic  criteria  for  substance  abuse.    The  Coast  Guard  informed 
the  applicant  that  the  April  27,  2003,  incident  was  “being  considered  his  first  alcohol 
incident  for  documentation  purposes”  and  that  “any  further  incidents  may  result  in 
your separation from the U.S. Coast Guard.”  
 

4. 

The record indicates that the applicant was arrested on April 4, 2004, for 
public drunkenness, and the Page 7 documenting the incident noted that the incident 
would  be  recorded  as  an  “alcohol  situation,”  in  lieu  of  an  “alcohol  incident.”    The 
applicant  was  referred  to  a  TRACEN  Petaluma  medical  officer,  in  accordance  with 
Article 20.A.2.e. of the Personnel Manual, who provided a diagnosis of alcohol abuse 
and recommended that the applicant complete a 14-day outpatient treatment program.  
The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  declined  treatment  for  his  alcohol  abuse,  and 
that  he  was  counseled  that  his  refusal  to  attend  and  complete  the  treatment  would 
result in his being recommended for discharge from the Coast Guard.  The Board notes 
that on May 5, 2004, when the applicant was told that he was being discharged from the 
Coast Guard, he once again indicated that he “did not desire to receive treatment for 
substance abuse.”  The applicant also did not object to being discharged. 

 
5. 

The Board finds that the applicant was properly discharged subsequent to 
his failure to participate in an alcohol treatment program.  In accordance with Article 
20.B.2.k. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant’s CO had the authority to recommend 
discharge of any member who had refused to undergo the treatment deemed necessary 
by the CO and a competent medical authority. 
 

The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his discharge for alcohol rehabilitation failure following his refusal to attend treatment 
for his alcohol problem was in any way erroneous or unjust or that he was denied any 
due process pursuant to his discharge under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  
In  accordance  with  the  SPD  Handbook,  an  RE-4  code  is  the  appropriate  reenlistment 
code  for  a  member  discharged  for  refusing  to  participate  in  a  treatment  program  for 
alcohol rehabilitation.  Although the applicant provided a letter from his stepfather and 
letters from two Coast Guard members who knew him prior to his discharge, he has not 
submitted sufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation treatment for alcohol abuse or 
evidence  of  his  sustained  sobriety  following  such  treatment.    In  light  of  the  current 
record, the applicant has not proved that his receipt of the RE-4  code is erroneous or 
unjust.3   
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

6. 

7. 
 

 

  

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
3  For  purposes  of  the  BCMRs,  “injustice”  is  “treatment  by  military  authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of 
justice.” Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing Reale 
v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SN  XXXXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 
 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

correction of his military record is denied.