DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-096 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxx, SR/E-1 (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 April 14, 2006, 
upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
duly appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 2, 2006, is adopted and signed by the three 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant, a former seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1) who served 24 days 
 
in the Coast Guard before being discharged for misconduct (drug use), asked the Board 
to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  reenlistment  code  from  RE-4  (ineligible  for 
reenlistment) to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment) so he can reenlist in the Coast Guard.  
The applicant stated that when he tested positive for marijuana use upon reporting to 
recruit training, he “panicked, and in a moment of youthful indiscretion, went absent 
without leave [AWOL].”  He also stated, “The mistake [drug use] I made prior to my 
enlistment taught me a lesson I will not soon forget.  The time that has elapsed between 
my discharge and now has  been anything but wasteful.   I am 24 years old, and have 
matured a great deal.  My only wish is to better myself by serving my country in the 
United States Coast Guard.” 
 

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  from  his  current 
employer, Mr. B, who stated that he has known the applicant for more than seven years.  
Mr. B. stated that the applicant has “proven himself to be a responsible and respectful 
young man.”  Mr. B. also noted that the applicant “was always an individual I could 

count on, and worked well with others.  [The applicant] continually proved his ability 
and desire to learn more as his stay with the restaurant continued.  His growth in the 
culinary  field  was  evident  right  away,  and  he  became  an  essential  member  of  our 
team.”  Finally, he stated that the applicant would “be an incredible asset in any work 
environment.  He has a work ethic that is unparallel [sic], and a desire to improve and 
excel in every area.” 

 
 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 27, 1999, at the age of 17.  As 
part  of  the  enlistment  process,  the  applicant  signed  an  administrative  entry  (Page  7)1 
which stated “… I also understand that that upon reporting to recruit training, I will be 
tested  by  urinalysis  for  the  presence  of  illegal  drugs.    If  my  urine  test  detects  the 
presence of illegal drugs, I will be subject to immediate general discharge by reason of 
misconduct.  By signing below I am certifying I have not knowingly ingested any illegal 
drug for the last 60 days.”  Shortly after reporting to Training Center (TRACEN) Cape 
May  for  recruit  training,  the  applicant  submitted  a  urine  sample  for  urinalysis.    On 
August 13, 1999, the applicant went AWOL and did not return until August 19, 1999.   

 
On  August  20,  1999,  a  Page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record  by  the 
Commanding  Officer  (CO)  at  TRACEN  Cape  May  notifying  him  that  he  was  being 
discharged from the Coast Guard because the urinalysis conducted upon his arrival at 
TRACEN  had  tested  positive  for  an  illegal  substance.    The  Page  7  indicates  that  the 
applicant would be awarded a general discharge by reason of misconduct and that he 
would receive an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
On  August  20,  1999,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard 
pursuant  to  Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    He  received  a 
discharge  characterized  as  “under  honorable  conditions,”  a  separation  code  of  JDT,2 
and “misconduct” as the narrative reason for separation.  The record indicates that the 
applicant received an RE-4 reenlistment code.  Out of his 24 days in the Coast Guard, he 
had been AWOL for 6. 

 
Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant submitted a request to 
the Coast Guard’s Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and 

                                                 
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. 
 
2  JDT  denotes  an  “involuntary  discharge  directed  by  established  directive  when  a  member  procured  a 
fraudulent  enlistment, 
through  deliberate  material 
misrepresentation,  omission,  or  concealment  of  drug  abuse.”    Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  
Handbook, 2-23.  

induction,  or  period  of  military  service 

reenlistment  code.    On  May  10,  2005,  the  DRB  denied  the  applicant's  request,  stating 
that his discharge had been carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy and that 
his  character  of  service  and  reenlistment  code  were  proper.    On  August  9,  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  August  21,  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 for processing members with pre-service drug abuse.  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  pre-service  drug  abuse.    Finally,  CGPC 
stated that “given the applicant’s character of service ‘Under Honorable Conditions’ it 
would  be  inconsistent  to  assign  a  reenlistment  code  other  than  RE-4  with  a  General 
Discharge.” 
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  24,  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 12.B.18.b.4. of the Manual provides that any member involved in a drug 
incident  or  the  illegal,  wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or 
introduction  onto  a  military  installation  of  any  drug  will  be  processed  for  separation 
from the Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.  Commanding Officer, 
TRACEN Cape May is delegated the final discharge authority for members assigned to 
recruit  training  under  this  Article  in  specific  cases  of  drug  use  before  enlistment  (as 
evidenced  by  a  positive  urinalysis  shortly  after  training).    New  inductees  shall  sign  a 
CG-3307 entry acknowledging that the presence of drugs in their bodies upon arrival 
for recruit training is grounds for a general discharge for misconduct. 
 
 
The  SPD  Handbook  lists  the  reenlistment  code  authorized  for  a  member 
discharged  for  fraudulent  enlistment  through  deliberate  material  misrepresentation, 
omission, or concealment of drug use.  The only available reenlistment code is RE-4.  
 

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 applicant applied to the DRB approximately 
six  years  after  his  discharge,  and  the  DRB  issued  its  final  decision  on  May  19,  2005.  
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 March 31, 2006, and therefore, it was timely.  

 
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 asked the Board to upgrade his RE-4 reenlistment code to 
RE-1  so  he  can  reenlist  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  stated  that  his  panic  and 
subsequent AWOL from recruit training were the result of “youthful indiscretion” and 
that the experience has taught him a lesson he will not soon forget.  He also states that 
he has matured a great deal and that his “only wish is to better myself by serving my 
country in the United States Coast Guard.”   
 

4. 

The record indicates that the applicant signed a Page 7 before signing his 
enlistment  contract  on  July  27,  1999,  acknowledging  that  he  understood  that  “upon 
reporting  to  recruit  training,  I  will  be  tested  by  urinalysis  for  the  presence  of  illegal 
drugs.    If  my  urine  test  detects  the  presence  of  illegal  drugs,  I  will  be  subject  to 
immediate general discharge by reason of misconduct.  By signing below I am certifying 
I have not knowingly ingested any illegal drug for the last 60 days.”   
 

5. 

The record indicates that the applicant tested positive for illegal drug use 
upon his arrival at TRACEN Cape May and was counseled via a Page 7 on August 20, 
1999, that he was being discharged for misconduct because his urinalysis tested positive 
for an illegal substance.  The Page 7 also indicates that the applicant would receive an 
RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 

6. 

The Board finds that the applicant was properly discharged subsequent to 
his positive urinalysis for an illegal substance.  In accordance with Article 12.B.18.b.4. of 
the  Personnel  Manual,  the  CO  at  TRACEN  Cape  May  had  the  final  authority  to 
recommend the discharge of any member who tested positive for illegal drug use upon 
their arrival at TRACEN Cape May.   

 

7. 

The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his discharge for drug use was in any way erroneous or unjust or that he was denied 
any  due  process  pursuant  to  his  discharge  under  Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  Moreover, an RE-4 code is the only reenlistment code authorized for anyone 
discharged  due  to  concealment  of  drug  use.    Therefore,  the  applicant  has  not  proved 
that his receipt of the RE-4 code is erroneous or unjust and this case does not constitute 
“treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice.”  See 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)). 

 
8. 
 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SR  XXXXXXXXXXXXX.,  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer