DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-009 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
 , SA/E-2 (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  October  16,  2006,  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  ,  2007,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed  members 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman apprentice (SA) who served one year in the Coast Guard 
before being discharged for misconduct, asked the Board to correct her record by upgrading her 
reenlistment  code  from  RE-4  (ineligible  for  reenlistment)  to  RE-1  (eligible  for  reenlistment).  
She also asked the Board to correct the date of birth listed on her DD 214.1  Although she went 
AWOL (absent without leave) three times and stated that she had “no intention of returning,” she 
argued that she should not have received an RE-4 reenlistment code because: 
 

1.  She was not trained in a rating after graduating from basic training. 
2.  Her living quarters were not suitable for a female. 
3.  She was placed into a rating for which she had not received any training. 
4.  She was denied a transfer from Oregon Inlet. 
5.  She was not afforded the opportunity for training. 

 
 
The applicant stated that when she arrived at her first duty station (Cape Hatteras), she 
did not have a “rating”2 and as a result was “given grass cutting and asphalt laying duties.”   She 
also stated that after three months, she requested and received a transfer to Oregon Inlet.  She 
                                                 
1 The applicant’s DD 214 (Certification of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) lists her date of birth as June 3, 
1962.  Her correct date of birth is June 3, 1963. 
2 The majority of new Coast Guard enlistees have not received training in a specialty when they report to their first 
duty station.  Training in a specialty is obtained via attendance at “A” school or via on-the-job training (striking). 

alleged that on her first night at the new unit she was asked to assist with a search and rescue, but 
that she “had no prior training beside in [basic training] making floats out of your clothes.  I was 
young  and  scared  and  extremely  inexperienced.”    To  avoid  going  on  the  rescue  mission,  she 
alleged that “I told them I wasn’t going” and created a “story about being gay so that I could be 
discharged.” 
 
 
The applicant then alleged that after the Coast Guard determined that she was not gay and 
had  merely  made  that  claim  so  she  could  be  discharged,  she  was  returned  to  her  unit  at  the 
Oregon Inlet.  However, she alleged that unit did not have adequate housing for her because she 
was the only female in the unit.  As a result, she alleged, she was required to live in the unit’s 
guest quarters, which were located adjacent to a common area used by  other members of her 
unit.  She also alleged that her unit was “not equipped to handle female soldiers” and that she 
was “not given an opportunity to be transferred after the first transfer.”  She also stated that she 
tried to talk to her commander about her concerns but was “turned away.” 
 

Finally, the applicant stated that she “would like the opportunity to serve my country.”  
She added that “I made several mistakes while in the Coast Guard, and if my maturity level was 
at the level then as now, I would have made a career in the Guard.  My decisions would have 
been different.  I would have never gone AWOL.  All I ask for is the chance to prove I can serve 
my country.”  
 

In support of her application, the applicant submitted letters from her mother and father 

attesting to her character.  The applicant’s mother stated that 

 

 

 

 

… 

 
[the applicant] informed me many times by letters and phone calls that she was unhappy at Cape 
Hatteras  and  wanted  to  leave.    [The  applicant]  was  the  only  female  at  the  Group.    Her  living 
quarters was a room over the Group’s Main Office outside a poolroom.  [The applicant] expressed 
to me several times she requested a transfer from her Commander at the time but was denied.  I’m 
aware that she went AWOL several times and I can say that I did not approve of it at all.  My 
husband (her father) at the time always told her to go back and try to talk to someone about her 
situations.  [The applicant] was only 19 at the time of enlisting and very immature, it was her first 
time being away from home and … she was the only female at her duty station. 
 
 
It is 20 years later and though she went AWOL … she never deserted and tried to cope while she 
was there.  At that time she did not have any avenues to turn to.  She is now a responsible adult 
and has had her own business and has the opportunity to enlist in the Armed Forces and serve her 
country.  Situations may arise, but with her knowledge and maturity today, she will be able and 
capable of handling any diversity that may come her way.  All I ask is to give my daughter another 
chance and reconsider changing her RE Code from 4 to 1. 
 
The applicant’s father stated that he 
 
personally  spoke  to  [the  applicant’s]  commander  about  her  third  AWOL  after  witnessing  her 
living  conditions  and  how  she  was  not  being  trained.    We  talked  briefly  [and]  he  expressed 
concerns about my daughter.  His concerns trouble me because he was not trying to find a solution 
to any of her concerns.  …  My daughter did not receive the training she was supposed to receive 
at her duty station.  She left straight from Basic and went to cutting grass.  I personally believe 
because  they  did  not  have  females  stationed  at  Cape  Hatteras,  they  did  not  know  how  to 
accommodate her when she arrived.  Her living quarters were isolated.  Away from the barracks 

where the men were in.  A small room on top of the Group office where guests stay.  Outside her 
room was a pool table where all of the guys would come and play pool. 

… 
 

I am asking for a change in her RE Code, so that she may be able to enlist again.  I do not think 
she should be punished for the rest of her life for someone else’s personal feelings.  She wants to 
fix  helicopters  and  work  on  tankers.    She  is  extremely  gifted  in  putting  things  back  together.  
Please give my daughter another chance.  Please allow her to enlist with a RE-1 code.    
 
In  her  application  to  the  BCMR,  the  applicant  acknowledged  that  her  application  was 
untimely,  but  argued  that  the  Board  should  consider  it  because  she  did  not  notice  the  RE-4 
reenlistment code on her DD 214 until she sought to enlist in the Army.   

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  12,  1982,  at  the  age  of  19.    After 
completing recruit training she advanced to Seaman Apprentice (SA) and was assigned to USCG 
Group Cape Hatteras.  She was then assigned within the Group to USCG Station Oregon Inlet, 
North Carolina.   

 
On November 16, 1982, the applicant went AWOL and did not return until December 1, 
1982.    She  received  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)3  and  received  15  days’  restriction  and  15 
days’ extra duty.   

 
On December 2, 1982, the applicant once again went AWOL and did not return until she 
was apprehended by the Greensboro Police Department on December 22, 1982.  She received 
NJP and was awarded 26 days’ restriction, 26 days’ extra duty, and reduction to pay grade E-1 
(suspended for three months). 

 
On April 22, 1983, the applicant received NJP for failing to follow an order to pay a debt.  

She was awarded 30 days’ restriction, 30 days’ extra duty, and forfeiture of $100 for one month. 

 
On June 6, 1983, the applicant was AWOL and received NJP.  She was awarded 45 days’ 

restriction, 45 days’ extra duty, and forfeiture of one day’s pay. 

 
On  June  15,  1983,  the  Commander  of  Group  Cape  Hatteras  notified  the  applicant  via 
memorandum that he had initiated action to discharge her from the Coast Guard.  He stated that 
he  was  recommending  she  receive  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  for  her 
“frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities” as indicated below:  

 
a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 

AWOL – November 16, 1982 (16 days) 
AWOL – December 2, 1982 (20 days) 
Failure to obey an order issued by a superior petty officer 
AWOL – June 6, 1983 (1 day) 

                                                 
3 Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides NJP as a disciplinary measure that is more 
serious than administrative corrective measures but less serious than trial by court martial. 

e. 

Frequent counseling sessions during 1982 and 1983 concerning tardiness, 
absences, and indebtedness. 

 

In  his  letter  to  the  applicant,  the  Commander  noted  that  the  decision  concerning  her 
discharge and the type of discharge would rest with the Commandant, and that if she received a 
general  discharge  she  could  expect  to  encounter  prejudice  during  her  civilian  life.    He  also 
informed her that she had the right to consult with a military lawyer, could submit a statement on 
her own behalf, and that her rebuttal to his recommendation, if any, would be forwarded to the 
Commandant. 

 
On June 15, 1983, the applicant signed a “First Endorsement” to the Commander’s letter, 
acknowledging  notification  of  her  proposed  discharge,  acknowledging  that  she  had  been 
provided the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, indicating that she waived her right to submit 
a statement, acknowledging that she understood that if she was awarded a general discharge that 
she could expect to encounter prejudice in civilian life, and indicating that she did not object to 
being discharged from the Coast Guard. 

 
In  a June 16, 1983, memorandum to the Commandant, the Commander, USCG Group 
Cape Hatteras, recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard.  Citing the 
applicant’s four NJPs and counseling regarding her conduct and performance, the Commander 
recommended  that  she  receive  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  for  her 
misconduct  and  frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable  nature  with  military  authorities.  The 
Commander noted that 

 
after a brief two week communication watch break-in at the Group Office, she was transferred to 
Station Oregon Inlet.  [The applicant] approached her Officer in Charge after only two weeks at 
the station indicating that she couldn’t work for the Coast Guard anymore and wanted to quit.  She 
was  transferred  back  to  the  Group  Office  on  18  October  1982.    At  the  Group  Office  she  was 
counseled  by  superior  petty  officers  on  work  performance  regularly  and  began  improving  her 
work habits until 10 November 1982, when she received a report that a cousin had died.  She was 
given a five days emergency leave and did not return for duty until 1 December 1982.  After a 
brief stay (one day) at the Group Office she left again, until 22 December 1982. 

… 
 

[The applicant’s] performance at Group  Cape Hatteras  has been hindered by  her absences on a 
regular  basis  and  indebtedness.    She  has  repaid  those  crewmembers  and  merchants  the  money 
borrowed  earlier  this  year.    [The  applicant]  has  no  desire  to  advance  in  the  Coast  Guard.    She 
wants out and believes the Coast Guard is keeping her from fulfilling her intentions in life.   
 
On  July  7,  1983, 

the 
recommendation that the applicant receive  a  general discharge under honorable conditions for 
misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  

the  Commander,  Fifth  Coast  Guard  District,  endorsed 

 
On July 21, 1983, the Commandant approved the applicant’s general discharge from the 
Coast Guard by reason of misconduct, pursuant to Article 12.B.18. of the Coast Guard Personnel 
Manual. 
 
On August 12, 1983, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard.  Her DD 214 
indicates  that  she  was  discharged  under  honorable  conditions  for  misconduct  under  Article 

12.B.18.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  received  separation  code  HKA,4  and  an  RE-4  reenlistment 
code.  Her DD 214 lists her date of birth as June 3, 1962.     

 
On November 9, 2006, the Coast Guard issued the applicant a DD 215 (correction to DD 

214) correcting the date of birth on her August 12, 1983, DD 214 to June 3, 1963. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 8, 2007, 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  failed  to  submit  a  timely  application  and  failed  to  supply  any  justification  for  the 
lengthy delay.   Notwithstanding the untimeliness, CGPC argued that the applicant’s discharge 
was “in accordance with Coast Guard policy for processing personnel for misconduct.”  CGPC 
noted that she was recommended for a general discharge because during her short enlistment she 
received NJP on four occasions, three of which involved “absence without leave culminating in a 
total  of  36  days  absence  and  on  one  occasion  she  was  apprehended  by  civilian  authorities.”  
CGPC also noted that the fourth NJP “stemmed from failure to obey an order regarding payment 
of  just  debts.”    CGPC  also  noted  that  in  her  application  to  the  BCMR,  the  applicant 
acknowledged her conduct issues which she attributed to immaturity.   
 

CGPC  noted  that  that  the  applicant  did  not  contest  her  discharge  nor  did  she  disagree 
with the Coast Guard’s issuance of a general – under honorable conditions discharge.  Rather, 
CGPC  stated,  the  applicant  based  her  request  for  correction  upon  her  allegation  that  she  has 
matured since the time of her discharge and upon her desire to join the Army.  CGPC stated that 
it would be “inconsistent to assign a reenlistment code other than RE-4 in conjunction with a 
general discharge.” 

 
CGPC noted that on November 9, 2006, the Coast Guard issued the applicant a DD 215 

to correct the date of birth on her DD 214.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 17, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited her to respond within 30 days.  The BCMR did not receive a response. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  Commander, 
CGPC,  may  direct  a  discharge  for  misconduct  and  the  type  of  discharge  (under  other  than 
honorable, general, or honorable) as warranted by the particular circumstances of a given case, 
including a member’s “discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities.” 
 
                                                 
4 A separation code of HKA denotes an involuntary discharge approved by recommendation of a board resulting 
from a pattern of misconduct of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The only reenlistment code 
permitted for a discharge due to misconduct is RE-4. 

The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  handbook  mandates  an  RE-4  reenlistment 
code for a member discharged for a pattern of misconduct of a discreditable nature with civil or 
military authorities.   
 

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 

10 of the United States Code.   

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant discovers the alleged error in her record.  The applicant received her dis-
charge and RE-4 code in 1983.  Although she stated that she discovered the alleged error (her 
inability to reenlist) when she recently decided to enlist in the Army, the Board notes that the 
applicant  was  afforded  legal  counsel  concerning  the  effect  of  her  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions  and  finds  that  she  knew  or  should  have  known  that  she  would  not  be  allowed  to 
reenlist prior to or upon her discharge in 1983.5  Moreover, her DD 214, which has her signature, 
clearly indicates RE-4 as her reenlistment code.  Therefore, her application was untimely. 

4. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), however, 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.”6  
 
 
The Board finds that the applicant has failed to provide an adequate explanation 
for waiting more than 23 years to bring a claim.  Her statement that she did not seek a correction 
to her military record earlier because she did not realize that she was ineligible to reenlist until 
she tried to enlist in the Army, is not persuasive.   
 

A cursory review of the record indicates the Coast Guard committed no error or 
injustice  in  awarding  the  applicant  a  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  and  an  RE-4 
reenlistment  code.    The  applicant’s  record  indicates  that  she  went  AWOL  on  three  separate 
occasions for a total of 37 days, and received NJP on four occasions.  She also stated that each 
time she went AWOL she had no intention of returning.  In accordance with the SPD handbook, 
an  RE-4  code  is  the  only  reenlistment  code  authorized  for  members  discharged  due  to 
misconduct.  Although the applicant provided letters from her mother and father and argued that 
her conduct was excusable because of her situation, she has not submitted sufficient evidence to 
overcome the presumption that her discharge and RE-4 reenlistment code were proper.   
                                                 
5  “An  application  for  correction  of  a  record  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or 
reasonably should have discovered the alleged error or injustice.”  33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
6 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992). 

5. 

 

6. 

7. 

The applicant also asked the Board to correct the date of birth on her DD 214.  
The Board notes that the Coast Guard issued the applicant a DD 215 on November 9, 2006, to 
remedy the error.   
 

 Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the 
statute of limitations in this case because the applicant failed to justify her long delay in seeking 
relief and she is not likely to prevail upon the merits of her claim.  Therefore, her request for an 
upgrade of her reenlistment code should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks 
merit. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxx USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 
  

 
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

of her military record is denied.