DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-136 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  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 June 30, 2006, 
upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military records. 
 
 
bers who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated May 11, 2007, is approved by the three duly appointed mem-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The applicant, who received a general discharge for misconduct on August 4, 1987, after 
his urine tested positive for cocaine use, asked the Board to “overturn” his discharge, which the 
Board interprets as a request for an honorable discharge.  The applicant stated that his general 
discharge has “not allowed [him] financial or social advancements.”  He admitted that he “made 
a grave mistake” but alleged that he has worked to overcome it and feels that it is “time to make 
up with [his] Government.” 
 
 
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a letter from a psychiatrist, Dr. S, who 
wrote that he has known the applicant for several years both as a courtesy patient and as the son 
of his friends.  Dr. S stated that the applicant has struggled with some learning disabilities but “is 
a man of high moral and ethical character, has worked very hard to overcome his problems, has 
no history of illegal behavior, and has not used illegal substances anymore.”  Dr. S stated that the 
applicant  has  worked  for  a  number  of  mortgage  companies  and  banks  as  a  “trusted  closer  of 
mortgages” and “has held responsible retail jobs.”  Dr. S asked for the applicant’s discharge to be 
upgraded because the applicant “has certainly paid a high price in anxiety and regret for any past 
indiscretions” and  “fears applying for jobs which might require disclosure of his military dis-
charge.”  
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On October 28, 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Upon enlistment and 
again on November 7, 1985, the applicant acknowledged having been counseled about the Coast 
Guard’s drug policy.  Upon completing boot camp, he was assigned to a cutter and advanced 
from seaman recruit to seaman apprentice (SA).   

 
On December 24, 1986, during a urinalysis of the crew, the applicant gave two samples 
of urine for testing and both tested positive for metabolites of cocaine.  On January 21, 1987, the 
applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed him that she was initiating his general discharge 
for drug abuse.  She informed him that he was entitled to object to his discharge, to consult an 
attorney, and to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

 
On February 9, 1987, the applicant acknowledged that he had consulted an attorney and 
responded in writing to his CO’s notification.  He stated that the urinalysis result “is puzzling 
and  personally  unbelievable  although  the  test  results  are  undeniable  …  I  cannot  deny  the  test 
results, but I do argue having knowingly been involved with drugs or anyone that does.  I do not 
use drugs!”  He asked to be retained on active duty.   

 
The applicant submitted with his statement a letter from the officer in charge (OIC) of his 
cutter, dated February 9, 1987, who wrote that how the cocaine “got into [the applicant’s] system 
is a matter of conjecture.  His denial of knowledgeable substance abuse is good enough for me.”  
The OIC noted that the applicant’s first year on the cutter had been stressful and that the appli-
cant had failed the course for advancement to seaman (E-3) three times.  However, he argued, 
the applicant should be retained because he “deserves a chance to complete his obligation to the 
Coast Guard and himself.  Releasing him will serve little purpose and I think we have an obliga-
tion to him as well. … He has not given up, so why should we?” 

 
On February 18, 1987, the District Commander forwarded the CO’s recommendation and 
the applicant’s rebuttal package to the Commandant with a recommendation that the discharge 
be approved.  On March 2, 1987, the Commandant ordered the applicant’s general discharge by 
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse within thirty days. 

 
On March 12, 1987, the applicant underwent a physical examination in preparation for 
discharge.    On  March  20,  1987,  the  applicant’s  command  informed  the  Commandant  that  the 
applicant could not be discharged within thirty days because he had disagreed with the finding of 
fitness on his discharge physical examination.  The applicant was retained on active duty  and 
underwent surgery for a congenital malformation of his left kidney on April 23, 1987, and again 
on May 13, 1987.  Following a further physical examination, which showed that his kidney was 
functioning properly, on July 9, 1987, the applicant agreed that he was fit for discharge. 

 
On August 4, 1987, the applicant received a general discharge “under honorable condi-

tions” for “misconduct” pursuant to Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  30,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended denial of relief and adopted the facts and analysis 
provided in a memorandum on the case by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   
  

CGPC stated that the application was not timely submitted and that the applicant did not 

justify his delay in seeking the requested correction. 

 
CGPC further stated that the applicant was discharged because of a positive urinalysis 
showing cocaine use and that in his application to the BCMR he did “not disagree with the facts 
of  the  incident  or  contend  that  his  discharge  was  improper.”    CGPC  stated  that  Coast  Guard 
policy “prescribes that personnel processed for involvement with drugs be discharged with no 
better than a general discharge. … While the applicant provides a statement regarding his current 
character and some potential learning disabilities, this does not substantiate any error or injustice 
at the time of discharge or regarding the applicant’s misconduct.  The applicant has provided no 
basis  for  relief  other  than  the  passage  of  time  since  his  discharge  and  that  he  has  worked  to 
overcome his mistakes.” 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 31, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant requested and was granted two 30-day 
extensions of the time to respond.  However, no response was received by the Board. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

Under Article 12-B-18.b.(4) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1987, the Commandant 

could separate a member for misconduct due to drug abuse as follows:  
 

Drug abuse.  The illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale transfer, or introduction on a 
military installation of any narcotic substance, intoxicating inhaled substance, marijuana, or con-
trolled substance, as established be 21 U.S.C. 812.  Any member involved in a drug incident will 
be separated from the Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.  However, in truly 
exceptional situations, commanding officers may recommend retention of members E-3 and below 
involved in only a single drug incident. …  

 
Under Article 12-B-18.e.(1), a member with less than eight years of active service who 
 
was being recommended for a general discharge for misconduct was entitled to (a) be informed 
of the reasons for the recommended discharge, (b) consult an attorney, and (c) submit a state-
ment in his own behalf. 
 
 
Under Article 20.C. of the current Personnel Manual, any member involved in any “drug 
incident” is subject to an administrative discharge with no greater than a general discharge under 
honorable conditions. 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

1. 

10 of the United States Code.   
 

 
7. 

 
lack of merit. 
 
 

Accordingly,  the  application  should  be  denied  because  of  its  untimeliness  and 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
3. 

 
4. 

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). The applicant received his general 
discharge for misconduct in 1987.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board "should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review."  The court further instructed that "the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review."  Id. at 164, 165.   See also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

5. 

The applicant failed to explain his delay in seeking the requested correction and to 
provide a compelling reason why the Board should waive the statute of limitations.  The appli-
cant’s  desire  to  “make  up  with  [his]  Government”  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  Board  to 
waive the statute of limitations or to upgrade his discharge. 
 

The applicant’s military records show that he was advised of the Coast Guard’s 
drug policies on the day he enlisted and during boot camp.  The record further indicates that after 
a  urinalysis  conducted  in  accordance  with  regulation  on  December  24,  1986,  the  applicant’s 
urine tested positive for cocaine metabolites.  Therefore, under Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel 
Manual, he was subject to discharge and entitled to no better than a general discharge.   
 

The applicant’s military records show that he was informed of and afforded his 
due process rights under Article 12.B.18.e.  The applicant has submitted no evidence of error or 
injustice in his discharge proceedings or in his character of discharge. 

6. 

The application of former SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier