DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-142 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 30, 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 28, 2007, is signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard on March 
14,  1990,  for  “unsuitability”  after  incurring  his  second  “alcohol  incident,”  asked  the 
Board to correct his discharge form, DD Form 214, by upgrading his reenlistment code 
from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist). 

 
The applicant stated that prior to his discharge, he did not know what the RE-4 
code meant and that if it had been explained to him, he “would’ve fought to stay in.”  
He  learned  the  meaning  of  the  code  when  he  consulted  a  recruiter  for  the  Army 
National Guard a few weeks after his discharge.  In support of his request the applicant 
further stated the following: 

 
I have been working full-time and attending college since January of 2000.  I first attend-
ed  Springfield  Technical  Community  College,  Massachusetts,  and  graduated  with  an 
Associate  Degree  of  Science  in  Law  Enforcement,  January  8th,  2003.    I  then  took  one 
semester OFF, and then transferred to Westfield State College, Massachusetts, and I will 
be  GRADUATING  this  coming  May  of  2006.    My  Grade-Point-Average  so  far  is:  3.11.  
My Major is Criminal Justice with a completed Minor in Political Science.  I chose these 2 

curriculums because I have a deep passion for History, Government, Law, and Politics, 
and that’s exactly what I have studied for the last 5 1/2 school years.  All you have to do 
is examine my transcripts.  It takes GREAT discipline and maturity to work full-time and 
attend  college  and  maintain  a  “B-  Average.”    Please  acknowledge  and  recognize  that 
about me.  I LOVE my country, and I want PERMISSION to serve it AGAIN.   

The applicant submitted a letter from a current commander in the Coast Guard, 

 
 
who stated that following: 
 

I recently had the opportunity to speak with [the applicant] regarding his discharge from 
the Coast Guard in March of 1990 while we both served in [the same station].  I was his 
Commanding Officer at the time of his discharge and wanted to write this letter to affirm 
all  the  positive  changes  he  has  made  in  his  life  since  being  discharged.    He  is  now  a 
mature,  contributing  member  of  society  and  has  successfully  attained  a  college  degree 
from  Westfield  State  with  a  degree  in  Criminal  Justice  while  maintaining  full  time 
employment—a significant accomplishment! 
 
At the time of his discharge he was diagnosed as being alcohol dependent and unfortu-
nately was not taking the necessary steps to correct his behavior and as a result received 
multiple  alcohol  incidents  and  was  eventually  discharged  in  accordance  with  service 
procedures.  [The station] was a small unit and as such we did not have a full time Yeo-
man  on  staff  and  received  most  of  our  administrative  support  from  the  Personnel 
Reporting unit at the Coast Guard Academy.  I cannot say with any certainty whether or 
not the personnel at the Academy properly counseled [the applicant] on the ramifications 
regarding his RE code.  I can say that it would not have mattered either way, as at that 
point in his life he seemed to be heading down a path that led my Executive Petty Officer 
to recommend the RE code 4. 
 
He has completely changed his life for the better and I would gladly have him as part of 
the  Coast  Guard  Team  again  and  would  recommend  a  change  to  his  RE  code  to  allow 
him to serve his country again in our Armed Forces.  I think the events of September 11th 
changed the outlook of many Americans and the fervor to serve and help your country is 
greater than ever.  He would be a welcome addition to any service given his dedication 
and energy. 

The applicant also submitted a letter from his supervisor at the Wackenhut Secu-

 
 
rity Corporation, who wrote the following: 
 

I strongly recommend [the applicant] for re-instatement back into the U.S. Coast Guard.  
[He]  has  been  a  full-time  employee  of 
the  Wackenhut  Security  Corporation 
(www.wackenhut.com)  since  September  of  2003.    Since  the  day  he  was  hired  he  has 
always been a very reliable, honest, trustworthy, hard-working, and dedicated employee 
of  the  Wackenhut  Corporation.    …  Here  at  our  job-site,  we  have  a  limited  number  of 
Security  Officers  for  man-power.    [The  applicant]  has  volunteered  numerous  times  for 
over-time when I was in dire need for a shift to be filled when one of the other Officers 
could not make it to work.  If he is granted permission to re-enter the U.S. Coast Guard, 
he will be strongly missed by the Wackenhut Security Corporation. 

 
 
Security Company, who wrote the following: 

The  applicant  also  submitted  a  letter  from  his  prior  supervisor  at  the  Arrow 

 

[The applicant] has been a very honest, reliable, and trustworthy employee while on our 
payroll.  His work attendance has been excellent.  He has called in sick only once over a 
time period of 20 months.  He is very punctual for all duty assignments. …  While [he] 
was assigned to the Bradley Airport Sheraton Hotel, he was required to PASS and FBI-
NCIC  computer  background  check  before  starting  the  assignment.    He  was  assigned 
there for 8 months. …  [The applicant] also practices good sobriety and there is no record 
of any problem in relation to his sobriety while being a full time employee of our com-
pany. 

In a letter dated April 6, 1990, the Executive Petty Officer (XPO) of the applicant’s 

 
 
station wrote the following: 
 

[The applicant] has shown great motivation towards the job and the service in general.  
While attached to [this station, he] has displayed a good attitude and a willingness to do 
the right thing.  [The applicant] was an integral part of the ship’s deck force which along 
with  one  other individual  was tasked with all of the  ship’s upkeep.  [He] also acted as 
Inport Officer of the Day and qualified for all other duties assigned to him. 
 
[The applicant] is a very motivated person and will give one hundred percent to any task 
or job assigned to him.  I feel that he would be an asset to any firm that he seeks employ-
ment with.  [He] is a dedicated and responsible person that knows the meaning of hard 
work and has the pride and ability to do a good job the first time around. 

 
 
The applicant submitted copies of his diploma for his Associate’s degree in Law 
Enforcement  from  Springfield  Technical  Community  College;  his  diploma  for  his 
Bachelor  of  Science  degree  in  Criminal  Justice  from  Westfield  State  College;  and  his 
final  transcript  from  Westfield  State  College,  showing  an  overall  3.168  grade  point 
average.  He also submitted a copy of his Coast Guard performance evaluation, dated 
November 30, 1980, and signed by his CO and XPO, who assigned him five marks of 3, 
nineteen marks of 4, and five marks of 5 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best) in the 
various performance categories. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
 
On July 2, 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard as an E-1.  During boot 
camp, the Coast Guard drug and alcohol abuse program was explained to him.  Upon 
completing boot camp, he advanced to fireman apprentice (E-2) and was transferred to 
a cutter.  He advanced to fireman (E-3) on July 8, 1985.  On May 4, 1986, the applicant 
was  counseled  about  his  poor  attitude,  declining  performance,  and 
lack  of 
responsibility and self-control. 
 

In September 1987, the applicant was transferred to another cutter.  On October 
8, 1987, the applicant’s new command made the following entry in his record, which the 
applicant acknowledged with his signature: 
 

Member was counseled this date concerning first alcohol incident of 87 SEP 20, when he 
was arrested for DWI in Kilso, WA.  Member has been warned that any subsequent alco-
hol incident will be grounds for separation from service.  Additionally, member has been 
informed  he  will  be  screened  by  a  medical  facility  to  determine  if  alcohol  dependency 
exists.  If such dependency exists member will be enrolled in an approved rehabilitation 
program. 

 
 
On  October  20,  1987,  the  director  of  a  Navy  drug  and  alcohol  abuse  program 
reported  to  the  applicant’s  command  that  screening  had  shown  that  the  applicant 
“appears  to  be  non-dependent.    [He]  appears  to  have  abused  alcohol  and  used  bad 
judgement.” 
 

In 1988, the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to earn a petty officer rating by 
attending “A” School for electronics technicians (ETs).  In November 1988, he was dis-
enrolled  from  “A”  School  for  “academic  failure.”    Thereafter,  he  again  attempted  to 
earn  a  petty  officer rating  by  “striking”  (on-the-job  training)  to  become  a  boatswain’s 
mate, but he did not succeed prior to his discharge in 1990.  While striking, his rating 
was changed from fireman (FN) to seaman (SN). 
 
 
entry in his record, which the applicant acknowledged with his signature: 
 

On  November  30,  1989,  the  CO  of  the  applicant’s  station  made  the  following 

Member was apprehended on 17 NOV 89 by an officer of the Southwick MA Police Dept. 
for suspicion of driving while intoxicated.  [He] refused to submit to sobriety tests and 
was placed under arrest.  [He] was counseled by this command that this was his second 
alcohol  incident  and  IAW  COMDTINST  M1000.6A  Chap  20-B-2  and  12-B-16,  member 
will be processed for separation by reason of unsuitability due to alcohol abuse. 

 
 
On December 5, 1989, the CO informed the applicant that he was initiating the 
applicant’s “honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability due to alcohol abuse.”  The 
CO informed the applicant that he was entitled to consult with an attorney and to sub-
mit a written statement in his own behalf.  The applicant acknowledged the notification 
and  indicated  that  he had  declined  the  opportunity  to  consult  an  attorney  but  would 
submit  a  statement.    In  his  statement,  the  applicant  wrote  that  he  had  “a  thorough 
understanding of why [he was] being discharged and [he had] no disagreements what-
soever.”  He wrote that he was proud of his service and good attitude.  He thanked the 
Coast Guard for giving him “the opportunity to attend ET ‘A’ School not only once but 
twice.  I honestly tried but could not make it through.  So I decided to change rates from 
FN to SN and strike BM.”  He noted that he had passed the necessary course work for 
advancement and had good marks.  He asked for an honorable discharge.  
 
 
be fit for separation.   
 

On December 6, 1989, the applicant was examined by a physician and found to 

 
On  January  3,  1990,  the  CO  forwarded  his  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s 
honorable  discharge  to  the  Commandant  along  with  the  applicant’s  statement  and 
documentation of the alcohol incidents.   The CO stated that the applicant was a very 
hard worker but “does not have the leadership ability to become a Petty Officer” or “to 
benefit the Coast Guard in other than a nonrated factor.” 
 
 
On January 22, 1990, the applicant again underwent screening and was found to 
be  alcohol  dependent  since  “he  disclosed  that  his  use  of  alcohol  frequently  results  in 
blackouts, his inability to control the amount of alcohol he consumes before interference 
with  his  personal  safety,  his  high  tolerance  for  alcohol,  and  his  characteristic  alcohol 
withdrawal symptoms.  Most of these symptoms have persisted for over one year.  He 
is likely to abuse alcohol in the future unless he makes the necessary behavioral changes 
as a result of inpatient treatment.” 
 

On January 22, 1990, a psychiatrist following up on the applicant’s screening for 
alcohol dependency certified that the applicant showed no evidence of any mental ill-
ness “other than alcohol abuse and dependency.”  The psychiatrist noted that the appli-
cant had “no insight into his illness and denies an alcohol problem.” 
 
 
On February 22, 1990, the Commandant responded to the CO’s recommendation 
by  ordering  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  separation  code  JMG  within  thirty 
days.  On March 14, 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged for “unsuitability” 
with a JMG separation code (which denotes separation for alcohol abuse) and an RE-4 
reenlistment code. 
 
 
Following his discharged, the applicant applied to the Discharge Review Board 
(DRB) to have his reenlistment code upgraded.  After the DRB denied his request, the 
applicant  applied  to  the  BCMR  for  the  same  relief.    His  application  was  docketed  as 
BCMR Docket No. 1990-261.  On February 21, 1991, the Chairman of the BCMR denied 
the applicant's request under 33 C.F.R. § 52.32(a)(1) of the Board rules at that time.  This 
provision  permitted  the  Chairman  to  deny  an  application  if  he  determined  that  the 
applicant failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable substantial error 
or  injustice.    However,  in  denying  relief,  the  Chairman  informed  the  applicant  that 
under 33 C.F.R. § 52.32(b), the order was issued “without prejudice to further consid-
eration  by  the  Board  if  the  applicant  requests  further  consideration  and  submits  evi-
dence in addition to that contained in his or her complete application.”   
 
 
In March 2003, the Secretary of Transportation removed the provisions for Chair-
man's denial from the Board's rules so that the issuance of all decisions is now left to the 
Board.  In April 2003, the applicant again asked the DRB to upgrade his RE code, but 
the  DRB  responded  to  him  by  stating  that  the  applicant  had  already  exhausted  his 
administrative  remedies  via  the  DRB  and  the  BCMR.    On  May  4,  2003,  the  applicant 
responded  to  the  DRB  by  pointing  out  that  in  1991  the  Chairman  of  the  BCMR  had 

stated  that  he  could  apply  for  further  consideration.    The  applicant  also  wrote  that 
although he “screwed up big time” while serving on active duty as a young man, he has 
now matured, is attending college, and “quit drinking back in March of 1998.”  He fur-
ther wrote the following: 

 
I  got  my  police  record  in  Massachusetts  sealed  in  February  of  2002,  10  months  before 
graduation.    I  now  have  legally  obtained  a  “license  to  carry”  gun  permit  in  Massachu-
setts, which is very hard to do nowadays due to the extremely controversial gun control 
legislation:    Chapter  180,  thanks  to  our  “no  good  for  nothing  speaker  of  the  House”: 
Thomas (the communist) Finngran. 
 
I  have  grown  into  a  God  fearing  Christian  and  am  a  loyal  member  of  the  Protestant 
Church.  I am a loyal member of the right-wing Republican Party, National Rifle Associa-
tion,  and  Gun  Owner’s  Action  League  of  Massachusetts.    I  worked  for  the  George  W. 
Bush presidential campaign.  I ran for office in Southwick for Library Board of Trustees 
against 2 Democrats and I won, and served for over 2 years.  I am a relentless political 
patriot that is very anti-new world order conspiracy theorist.  If I knew back in my early 
20’s what I know now, I would have quit drinking right then and there guaranteed!!!  I 
am on a mission for God, country and honor!!! 
 
I refuse to believe that the Discharge Review Board is powerless to upgrade my RE code 
on my DD-214.  You big-wig commissioned officers in Washington D.C. can do anything 
if you feel [it] is right or truly justified to help a man who needs or deserves help.  I was 
told by some friends who are very knowledgeable that the reason you guys don’t want to 
help me is because I’m asking to go into another branch of military service.  So my ques-
tion is:  If I pledge absolute loyalty to the U.S. Coast Guard, then will you help me??? 
 
I did study and pass the end of course tests for BM3, EM3, MRN-E4, and MRN-E5, which 
shows  I  did  try  very  hard  to  work  towards  advancement.    Just  read  the  DD-214.  …    I 
have taken good care of myself and am in good physical shape.  I still lift weights, run 
and swim laps at the YMCA.  I will volunteer to go to boot camp all over again, but I will 
not serve in any military or sign any enlistment without guaranteed school training right 
after boot camp. 
 
My closing statement:  I hope you men of power on the Discharge Review Board decide 
to help me and bring me back into the U.S. Coast Guard.  If you all are hell bent on say-
ing no, then I will just continue on going to college and build my education and you men 
can shake your heads and laugh at me all you want, but no matter what, “I am the one.  I 
am  the  way.    I  am  and  will  be  the  stone  pillar  that  upholds  the  U.S.  Constitution!!!.”  
[Capitalization and underlining removed to improve readability.] 

 
 
The  DRB  forwarded  a  copy  of  the  applicant’s  correspondence  to  the  BCMR.  
Because the applicant's original request had not received the full review on the merits 
by the Board that the applicant would be entitled to under the current rules, as a matter 
of equity, the Chair docketed his current application as BCMR No. 2006-142. 
 

   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On October 30, 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 pointed out that the application was untimely and could be denied on that 
basis.  CGPC alleged  that the applicant received all due process during his discharge 
and that the record shows that the Coast Guard committed no error or injustice in proc-
essing him for discharge and in assigning him the RE-4.   
 

CGPC pointed out that, for members discharged for unsuitability due to alcohol 
abuse, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code Handbook authorizes the assign-
ment of no other reenlistment code except the RE-4.  
 
 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  post-discharge  academic  progress  and  job  perform-
ance, CGPC stated that he “was not discharged due to discipline or performance issues, 
rather due to unsuitability for alcohol abuse.  These factors do not address any error or 
injustice and do not negate the Applicant’s suitability determination at the time of dis-
charge.” 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 6, 2006, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  
The applicant complained that the Coast Guard acknowledged that he had received an 
Associate degree but did not mention his Bachelor’s degree in the advisory opinion.  He 
stated that this failure shows that the Coast Guard did not review his application thor-
oughly  and  so  did  not  appreciate  the  effort  he  has  made  in  working  full  time  while 
attending  college.    He  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  ignored  his  proven  “serious  work 
ethic” and maturity.  The applicant pointed out that his DUIs occurred more than six-
teen years ago and asked for a second chance to serve his country. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 12-B-16.b.(5) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1990 authorized the dis-
charge  of  personnel  for  “unsuitability”  due  to  alcohol  abuse.    Article  12-B-16.d.  pro-
vided  that  before  a  commanding  officer  recommended  a  member  for  discharge  for 
unsuitability,  the  member  had  to  be  (1)  informed  in  writing  of  the  reason  for  the 
discharge, (2) given an opportunity to submit a written statement in his own behalf, and 
(3)  given  an  opportunity  to  consult  with  an  attorney  if  a  general  discharge  might  be 
awarded. 
 
 
Article 12-B-4.a. stated that “a member who meets the standards for an honorable 
discharge set forth in Article 12-B-2.f. should be eligible for reenlistment, except where 
the reason for discharge precludes reenlistment, such as physical disqualification, dis-
ability, unsuitability, misconduct, … “ 
 
 
Article 20-A-3.b. defined “alcohol incident” as “[a]lcohol abuse to the extent that 
it  has  an  outward  detrimental  effect  on  the  abuser,  or  others,  such  as  involvement  in 
any injury, loss of duty status, inability at any required time to properly perform duties 
due  to  alcohol  consumption,  damage  or  loss  of  property,  or  violation  of  the  UCMJ, 
Federal, State, or local laws.” 
 
 
Article 20-B-2.c. stated that after a member’s first “alcohol incident,” the member 
was to be medically screened, informed of the results of the screening, and, if necessary, 
placed in an appropriate program.  In addition, the member was to be warned that “any 
subsequent alcohol related incidents or situations may result in the member being proc-
essed for discharge.”  The counseling was to be documented in the member’s record. 
 
 
Article 20-B-2.d. stated that “members involved in a second alcohol incident will 
normally  be  processed  for  separation  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  alcohol  abuse 
under Article 12-B-16.  In those cases where the commanding officer/officer in charge 
feels  that  an  exceptional  situation  warrants  consideration  for  retention,  the  enlisted 
member will be screened an a letter request for retention and treatment (including the 
medical screening results, treatment plan, and CO’s recommendation) shall be forward-
ed via the chain of command to Commandant (G-PE) who shall consult with Comman-
dant (G-KOM) and direct the appropriate action regarding retention.” 
 

The Separation Program Designator Handbook in effect in 1990 provided that a 
member being discharged for unsuitability due to alcohol abuse under Article 12-B-16 
of the Personnel Manual should be assigned only a JMG separation code and an RE-4 
reenlistment code.   
 

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 over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

 

2. 

The  applicant  timely  applied  to  the  BCMR  for  correction  of  his  reenlist-
ment  code  in  1990.    The  Chairman  denied  the  case  without  prejudice,  pursuant  to  33 
C.F.R. § 52.32 of the Board’s rules at that time, based on the applicant’s failure to submit 
substantial evidence of error or injustice in his military record.  The Chairman informed 
the applicant that he could resubmit his application if he provided additional evidence 
of error or injustice.  The applicant waited about fifteen years to do so.  Since the appli-
cation was never reviewed by a designated Board, as all such applications are today, the 
Board  concurs  with  the  Chair’s  decision  to  docket  the  application.    Under  10  U.S.C. 
§ 1552(b), however, an application to the Board must be filed within three years of the 
date the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  Because the applicant clear-
ly  knew  about  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code  when  he  applied  to  the  Board  in  1990,  his 
latest application was not timely filed. 
 

3. 

5. 

4. 

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 sup-
ports 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).   
 
 
The applicant did not provide a compelling explanation for his long delay 
in seeking further consideration of his request for an upgraded reenlistment code.  The 
Board notes, however, that the evidence the applicant has submitted in support of his 
allegation  of  injustice  is  new  and  was  not  available  to  him  within  three  years  of  his 
discharge. 
 
 
The applicant’s record indicates that he was discharged as a result of two 
arrests for DUI, both of which constituted “alcohol incidents,” under Article 20-A-3.b. of 
the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1990.    Under  Article  20-B-2.d.,  a  member’s  second 
alcohol incident “normally” resulted in his discharge for unsuitability under Article 12-
B-16, but a member’s commanding officer could ask the Commandant for permission to 
retain the member in exceptional situations.  This same policy remains in effect today 
under Articles 20.B.2.h.2. and 12.B.16. of the current Personnel Manual.  In his letter to 
the Commandant dated January 3, 1990, the applicant’s CO noted that apart from the 

applicant’s alcohol abuse, his unsuccessful attempts to advance showed that the appli-
cant did “not have the leadership ability to become a Petty Officer” or “to benefit the 
Coast Guard in other than a nonrated factor,” despite being a very hard worker.   The 
record also shows that the applicant received all due process under Article 12-B-16 prior 
to his discharge.  Under the SPD Handbook in effect in 1990, as well as under current 
regulations,  an  RE-4  is  the  only  reenlistment  code  authorized  for  members  separated 
due to alcohol abuse.  There is no evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error or 
injustice by assigning the applicant an RE-4 in 1990. 
 
 
The applicant, however, alleges not that the RE-4 was undeserved in 1990 
but that his reenlistment code is now unjust because he has matured over the past six-
teen years, no longer abuses alcohol, and deserves another chance to join the military.  
In  support  of  his  request  for  an  upgraded reenlistment  code,  the  applicant  submitted 
evidence showing that he has recently earned Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees while 
working full time as a security guard.  This feat indicates that the applicant is still a very 
hard worker, as his CO stated in 1990.  This same officer—the applicant’s CO in 1990—
recently spoke to the applicant at length and concluded that he “would gladly have him 
as part of the Coast Guard Team again and would recommend a change to his RE code 
to allow him to serve his country again.”  The applicant also submitted references from 
two  recent  supervisors,  who  indicate  that  he  has  been  a  reliable,  hard-working,  and 
sober employee.  In light of this compelling new evidence, which could not have been 
submitted earlier, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the 
application’s untimeliness and to consider the applicant’s request on its merits. 
 
 
The  applicant’s  ability  to  earn  his  Associate’s  and  Bachelor’s  degrees 
while working full time as a security guard shows fortitude and determination.  How-
ever, his ability to work hard was never in question.  Even in the recommendation for 
discharge dated January 3, 1990, the CO acknowledged that the applicant was a  very 
hard worker.  The CO’s recommendation indicates that, in addition to the applicant’s 
abuse of alcohol, the CO had found that the applicant had no capacity for leadership.  
The Board notes that while members entering the Coast Guard as E-1 recruits usually 
advance  to  a  third  class  petty  officer  rating  within  two  or  three  years,  the  applicant 
served for more than five and one-half years without earning a rating. 
 
 
Moreover, the Board cannot ignore the applicant’s response to the letter of 
the DRB informing him that he had already exhausted his administrative remedies.  The 
applicant’s letter dated May 4, 2003—written with all capital letters, much underlining, 
and many exclamation points—indicates that he strongly believes that his political and 
religious views ought to make him eligible for reenlistment.  He also described himself 
as “very anti-new world order conspiracy theorist.  If I knew back in my early 20’s what 
I know now, I would have quit drinking right then and there guaranteed!!!  I am on a 
mission for God, country and honor!!! … I am the one.  I am the way.  I am and will be 
the stone pillar that upholds the U.S. Constitution!!!”  He addressed the DRB as “big-

7. 

6. 

8. 

wig commissioned officers” and suggested that they might be prejudiced against him 
because he was considering joining a different branch of the military.  The strident tone 
and anti-authoritarian statements in the applicant’s letter contradict his claim of having 
acquired the maturity and character needed to succeed in the Coast Guard or any other 
branch of the Armed Forces. 
 
 
In light of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that the applicant has 
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his RE-4 reenlistment code is 
erroneous or unjust.1 
 
 
 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

9. 

 

                                                 
1 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)) (holding  that for purposes of 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is 
“treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice but is not technically illegal”). 

The application of former SN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

his military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn