DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-123 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 June 2, 2006, upon receipt of the completed application and military records. 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 15, 2007, is signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was discharged from the Coast Guard on November 12, 2004, 
asked the Board to correct his discharge form, DD Form 214, by upgrading his reenlist-
ment code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist). 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  erroneously  discharged  for  alcohol  rehabilita-
tion failure even though he only had one “alcohol incident”1 in his record, whereas the 
Personnel  Manual  requires  two  such  incidents  to  occur  before  a  member  can  be  dis-
charged for alcohol rehabilitation failure.2  The applicant stated that when he applied to 

                                                 
1 Article 20.A.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual defines an “alcohol incident” as “[a]ny 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice, 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.”  
2 Article 20.B.2.h.2. 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.” 

the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for correction of his DD 214, that board corrected his 
narrative reason  for  discharge  and  separation  code  but  unfairly  refused  to  correct  his 
reenlistment code. 

 
The applicant alleged that his discharge was unjust because he had never been 
taken to mast for nonjudicial punishment  since the Executive Officer (XO) of his  unit 
“didn’t have evidence to mast me.  So they put something together to discharge me.”  
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  second  incident  for  which  he  was  discharged  was  an 
“alcohol-related situation”3 rather than an “alcohol incident.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On May 20, 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  On January 9, 2004, 
the applicant was suspended from Operations Specialist “A” School because on January 
7, 2004, he had been stopped by base police and charged with driving under the influ-
ence (DUI) of alcohol.  His blood alcohol content (BAC) was measured at 0.131%.  An 
administrative entry (“page 7”) in his record notes that he had a “court date of 29 JAN 
04.”  The applicant was notified in a memorandum that he was ordered not to drive a 
vehicle within the limits of any military installation for a period of one year. 
 

On  January  21,  2004,  the  applicant  was  counseled  about  missing  mandatory 

musters and keeping his supervisor advised of his location. 

 
On January 26, 2004, the applicant was screened for alcohol addiction and found 
not to meet the criteria for substance abuse  or dependence.  The  XO documented the 
applicant’s DUI on January 7, 2004, as his first “alcohol incident.”  The applicant was 
advised  in  a  page  7  dated  February  6,  2004,  that  any  further  alcohol  incident  could 
result in his discharge pursuant to Article 20 of the Personnel Manual. 

 
On February 13, 2004, the applicant was counseled about failing to obey an order 

to clean the “Head facilities” at the base shotgun range. 

 
Following his disenrollment from “A” School, the applicant was transferred to a 
cutter.  On March 11, 2004, the XO of the cutter wrote the following on a page 7 for the 
applicant’s record: 

 
On 09MAR2004 you were escorted to the [cutter] after ISC Seattle base security guards 
discovered you were drinking alcoholic beverages in your car while parked on base. 

                                                 
3 Article 20.B.2.d. states that an “alcohol-related situation is defined as any situation in which alcohol was 
involved  or  present  but  was  not  considered  a  causative  factor  for  a  member's  undesirable  behavior  or 
performance.  … Commands shall not use the term ‘alcohol-related situation’ when a member's behavior 
clearly meets the criteria of an ‘alcohol incident.’”  The Personnel Manual does not require the discharge 
of a member due to a second alcohol-related situation. 

 
Base security reported that at approximately 0250 you were observed removing an alco-
holic beverage from the trunk of your vehicle [from] which you then took a drink.  You 
were confronted by base security and escorted to the base Command Duty Officer.  Dur-
ing your escort and while in the presence of the CDO, you increasing[ly] became belliger-
ent and confrontational.  Repeatedly you had to be asked to calm down.  You were then 
escorted to your ship, …, where you were remanded into the custody of the OOD.  Previ-
ously on 02MAR2004, you had another encounter with OSC Seattle base security.  Base 
security officers observed you removing beer from the trunk of your car and had refused 
to  cooperate  when  the  security  personnel  asked  [you]  to  pick  up  an  empty  beer  carton 
that  an  acquaintance  with  you  threw  onto  the  ground.    At  this  time  you  were  spe-
cific[ally] and clearly informed that ISC Seattle was a dry base and that no alcoholic bev-
erage  or  the  consumption  of  such  was  allowed.    Again,  your  behavior  was  confronta-
tional  and  disrespectful  toward  base  security.    You  were  determined  to  be  intoxicated 
and had to be refrained by base security from driving your car off base.  On 07JAN2004, 
you were charged with a DUI when you attempted to drive onto Training Center Peta-
luma while intoxicated.  A breath sensor was utilized and your BAC at the time was 0.13 
which is above the legal limit in the state of California.  You were charged with your first 
alcohol incident and disenrolled from OS “A” School.  You were also notified, via Memo-
randum,  that  your  driving  privileges  onto  any  military  installation  were  immediately 
suspended for a minimum period of one year.  Since your arrival to the [cutter], you have 
routinely driven onto base in direct violation of this standing order. 
 
Your actions on 07MAR04 and 09MAR2004 in direct violation of base policy along with 
your  blatant  disrespect  toward  Base  Security  and  the  Base  Command  Duty  Officer  has 
brought discredit upon yourself and the US Coast Guard.  As per Section 20-B, Personnel 
Manual, COMDTINST M100.6, this is in direct violation of Coast Guard policy concern-
ing  the  use  of  alcohol. 
  This  is  considered  your  second  alcohol  incident  for 
documentation  purposes.    Per  Chapter  20  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST 
M1000.6, you will be immediately process[ed] for administrative separation from the US 
Coast Guard. 
 
The applicant’s record also contains incident reports by the base security officers 

and the Base Command Duty Officer confirming the statements in this page 7. 

 
On  March  31,  2004,  the  applicant  was  counseled  on  a  page  7  about  his  lack  of 
military bearing and neglect of duties during a mooring evolution, which “endangered 
other department personnel and their safety.” 

 
On April 12, 2004, the applicant was counseled on a page 7 about having been 
involved  in  an  unacceptable  sexual  relationship  with  a  fellow  crewmate  on  March  4, 
2004. 

 
On April 14, 2004, the commanding officer (CO) of the cutter informed the appli-
cant that he was initiating the applicant’s honorable discharge due to his second alcohol 
incident and the applicant’s behavior during his first week aboard the cutter.  The CO 
informed the applicant that he could submit a statement on his own behalf.   

 

The  applicant  objected  to  his  discharge  and  submitted  two  statements—one 
handwritten  and  one  typed—on  his  own  behalf.    Regarding  the  DUI,  the  applicant 
alleged that his BAC documented on a ticket as only 0.09% and that the judge allowed 
him to plead to reckless driving instead of DUI.  Regarding the events during his first 
week aboard the cutter, he denied having been belligerent towards the security guards 
or anyone else; he denied having been told prior to March 9, 2004, that alcohol was not 
allowed  on  base;  and  he  denied  having  driven  his  vehicle  on  base.    He  alleged  that 
“every time my car was moved, someone else was the driver.”  He admitted that before 
base security knocked on his car door on March 9, 2004, he had gotten a beer out of his 
trunk and was drinking it in his car while he used his cell phone, but alleged that he did 
not  then  know  that  the  base  was  “dry.”    Regarding  the  events  of  March  4,  2004,  the 
applicant  denied  having  entered  women’s  berthing  and  denied  having  a  relationship 
with a female crewmate. 

 
On April 14, 2004, the CO recommended that the applicant be discharged due to 
his second alcohol incident.  The CO stated that the applicant was found drinking alco-
hol on base on March 6, 2004, and was warned that it was not allowed.  However, the 
applicant was again found drinking alcohol on base on March 9, 2004.  The CO noted 
that the “circumstances surrounding [the alleged inappropriate relationship on March 
4, 2004] also included consumption of alcohol and were the subject of an inconclusive 
CGIS investigation involving an alleged sexual assault.”  The applicant was temporarily 
assigned to ISC Seattle while he was considered for a “second chance.” 

 
On October 27, 2004, upon returning from five months underway, the applicant’s 
CO recommended against granting the applicant a waiver under the “second chance” 
program. 

 
On  November  12,  2004,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  for  “alcohol 
rehabilitation  failure”  with  a  JPD  separation  code  (which  denotes  an  involuntary  dis-
charge  due  to  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure)  and  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  in  accor-
dance  with  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which  authorizes  discharges  for 
unsuitability. 

 
Following  his  discharge,  the  applicant  applied  to  the  DRB  for  correction  of  his 
DD 214.  He alleged that he did not fail alcohol rehabilitation but attended an alcohol 
abuse  program  on  September  30,  2004.    On  March  24,  2005,  the  DRB  found  that  the 
applicant’s  discharge  was  proper  and  equitable  but  recommended  that  his  narrative 
reason for separation be changed from “alcohol rehabilitation failure” to “separation for 
miscellaneous/general reasons” and that his separation code be changed to JND so that 
his record would show that he was discharged under Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel 
Manual, which authorizes discharges for the convenience of the Government.  The DRB 
stated that it “felt that the discharge was carried out in accordance with Coast Guard 
policy  in  that  after  two  alcohol  incidents  the  member  will  be  recommended  for  dis-

charge.  The JPD code was not properly documented in the service record.  The more 
appropriate separation code should be reflected as JND with a narrative reason Separa-
tion for Miscellaneous/General Reasons referencing Personnel Manual Article 12-B-12.  
The reentry code of RE-4 is deemed appropriate and should remain unchanged.”  The 
DRB’s recommendation was approved on June 27, 2005, and the applicant was issued a 
DD 215 to correct his DD 214. 
 

   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 2, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the appli-
cant’s  request.    The  JAG  adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  of  the  case  provided  in  a 
memorandum by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   
 
 
CGPC noted that although the applicant claimed there was no evidence that he 
was drinking alcohol during his second alcohol incident, he admitted that he had been 
drinking alcohol in his own written statement objecting to his discharge. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  DRB’s  rationale  for  changing  the  applicant’s  separation 
code and narrative reason for separation is not clear since the DRB did conclude that the 
applicant’s discharge as a result of his second alcohol incident was proper.   
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant was properly screened and counseled following 
his first alcohol incident on January 7, 2004.  CGPC stated that the applicant’s second 
alcohol incident—drinking on a dry base on March 9, 2004—occurred just days after he 
had been warned that he could not drink on base.  CGPC alleged that the remainder of 
the  applicant’s  record  reveals  “a  repeated  pattern  of  nonconformity  to  rules  as  evi-
denced  by  negative  service  record  entries.”    CGPC  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  poor 
record supports the assignment of an RE-4 as the appropriate reenlistment code.  CGPC 
stated that there “is no evidence of error or injustice with regards to the applicant’s dis-
charge or assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.” 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  3,  2006,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s 
advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    No  response  was 
received.  
  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

The Separation Program Designator Handbook permits the use of the following 

 
 
codes, narrative reasons, and reenlistment codes: 
 

SPD Code  Narrative Reason  RE Code  Authority  Explanation 

RE-4 

12-B-16 

Involuntary discharge … when a member 
failed through inability or refusal to 
participate in, cooperate in, or 
successfully complete a treatment 
program for alcohol rehabilitation. 
Involuntary discharge … when a Service 
component … desires to identify reasons 
collectively “All other reasons” which 
qualify a member for separation 

JPD 

Alcohol 
Rehabilitation 
Failure 

JND 

Separation for 
Miscellaneous/ 
General Reasons 

RE-1 or 
RE-4 

12-B-12 

 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

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

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 

 
2. 

The  applicant  argued  that  his  reenlistment  code  should  be  upgraded 
because he did not have a second alcohol incident and so was improperly discharged.  
His military record, however, contains ample evidence to show that on March 9, 2004, 
the  applicant  incurred  an  alcohol  incident  by  drinking  alcohol  on  base,  contrary  to 
standing  orders,  and  becoming  belligerent  with  both  base  security  officers  and  the 
Command  Duty  Officer.    The  applicant’s  behavior  as  described  in  the  page  7  dated 
March 11, 2004, and in the incident reports certainly meets the definition of an alcohol 
incident under Article 20.A.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual.  Although the applicant now 
claims that he was not drinking alcohol when discovered by base security on March 9, 
2004, the officer’s incident report and the applicant’s own statement in objection to the 
recommended discharge show that he took a beer out of the trunk of his car, sat in his 
car,  and  proceeded  to  drink  the  beer  even  though  he  had  been  warned  on  March  2, 
2004, that the base was “dry” after base security saw him removing beer from his car’s 
trunk. 

 
3. 

Because  base  police  had  already  stopped  the  applicant  while  driving 
under the influence of alcohol on January 7, 2004, his behavior on March 9, 2004, con-
stituted his second alcohol incident.  He had been properly warned after the first alco-
hol incident that a second such incident would likely result in his discharge.  Therefore, 
under Article 20.B.2.h.2. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant’s command committed 
no error in initiating his discharge in accordance with Article 12.B.16. 

 
4. 

The applicant’s record contains the required page 7s documenting his two 
alcohol  incidents  and  screening  results.    His  record  also  shows  that  he  was  properly 

notified of his CO’s recommendation for discharge and allowed to submit a statement 
on  his  own  behalf.    The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  received  all  due  process 
under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual with respect to his discharge. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  RE-4  code  is  unjust.    However,  the  Board 
finds that his discharge and RE-4 code do not constitute error or treatment by military 
authorities that “shocks the sense of justice.”4  The applicant’s record reveals a pattern 
of  disruptive  and  disrespectful  conduct  that,  along  with  his  two  documented  alcohol 
incidents, fully supports the assignment of the RE-4.  He has submitted no evidence to 
overcome the presumption of regularity afforded the Coast Guard in this matter.   

 
6. 

 

 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
4 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)). 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

his military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 Richard Walter