DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-021 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Ulmer, 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 application on November 8, 2006, 
upon receipt of the applicant's complete application for correction of his military record. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  13,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his RE-4 (not eligible 
for reenlistment) reenlistment code “to allow reentry into military service during these war-time 
conditions.”   
 

The  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  general  discharge  under 
honorable conditions (commonly known as a general discharge) by reason of misconduct (drug 
abuse).  He was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code and a JKK (drug abuse) separation code.  
 

 

 
 

 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that he was erroneously discharged from the Coast Guard and that 
he should have an opportunity to clear his name and serve his country as originally desired.  He 
stated that the “blemish to his record has not been evidenced in his life after the military in any 
way, form, or fashion.” 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on May 24, 1994.  At that time, he signed an 

administrative remarks (page 7) entry, which advised him of the following: 

I have been advised that the illegal use or possession of drugs constitutes a serious 
breach  of  discipline  [,]  which  will  not  be  tolerated.    Also,  illegal  drug  use  or 
possession is counter to esprit de corps & mission performance and jeopardizes 
safety.  No member will use, possess, or distribute illegal drugs, drug parapherna-
lia or hemp oil products.  I also understand 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 may be subject to discharge and receive a 
general discharge.  

On August 29, 1996, the applicant's urine sample was found to contain Cannabinoids as 

On September 4, 1996, the applicant was disenrolled from OCS as a result of his positive 

 
 
On August 18, 1996, upon reporting to Officer Candidate School (OCS), the applicant 
participated in a urinalysis screening by providing a urine sample to be tested for the presence of 
illegal drugs. 
 
 
carboxy (THC) (a marijuana metabolite).  
 
 
drug test.    
 
 
On September 25, 1996, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant 
that  he  had  initiated  action  to  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  general 
discharge under honorable conditions due to drug abuse.  The CO advised the applicant that he 
could object to the discharge and that he could submit a statement in his own behalf. 
 
On  September  25,  1996,  the  applicant  acknowledged  notification  of  the  proposed  dis-
 
charge, objected to being discharged, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The appli-
cant’s statement objecting to his discharge was dated October 2, 1996.  He wrote the following: 
 

 

1.  First and Foremost, I will continue to express my innocence in this situation.  I 
have never in my life experienced or abused drugs of any type.  The accusations 
that have been placed on me are direct questions of my character, integrity, and 
intelligence.    I  feel  my  character  has  been  tested  because  there  has  not  been  a 
chance for me to give another urinalysis.  I understand the U.S, Coast Guard has 
total confidence in the accuracy of its drug testing process, but like any process 
conducted  by  human  beings,  there  is  always  a  margin  for  human  error.      As  a 
member  of  this  organization,  I  am  fully  aware  that  one  of  its  missions  is  to 
interdict illegal drugs from reaching the country . . . [T]herefore, to declare that I 
am abusing an illegal substance is a question of my integrity.  To think I could 
actually be dependent on drugs and a complete four years of college, and be fully 
aware  that  I  would  be  attending  [OCS]  insinuates  that  I  am  not  an  intelligent 
person.   

3.  My history of an unblemished drug record should count for something.  As a 
high school and college athlete prior to enlisting in the Coast Guard, I underwent 
a series of drug testing and have never been tested positive.  Also, I was tested to 

●  ●  ● 

get into the Coast Guard when  I  arrived at  Boot Camp and prior to  arriving to 
Yorktown.    I  feel  these  things  should  raise  some  reasonable  doubt,  however,  I 
understand that does not cancel out the positive result.  That is why I volunteered 
to take another urinalysis or undergo the evaluation urinalysis process. 
 
4.  Once again I would like to plead my innocence in this situation.  I am not a 
drug user or abuser and am being victimized beyond my ability to counteract.  I 
urge you not to make a decision based solely on the positive sample.  A discharge 
from  the  military  under  dishonorable  conditions  could  have  an  enormously 
detrimental effect on the reminder of my life.   

 

 

 

 

 

On  November  8,  1996,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    He  had 

 
On October 17, 1996, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged due to misconduct/ 

 
 
On September 26, 1996, the applicant's CO recommended that Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  discharge  the  applicant  due  to  wrongful  use  of  illegal  drugs 
discovered in the applicant's urine specimen.   The CO informed CGPC that the applicant had 
refused  non  judicial  punishment  and  that  the  CO  had  dismissed  the  wrongful  use  charge  to 
pursue an administrative separation.   The results of the drug test and the applicant’s statement 
were attached to the CO’s letter, which CGPC stamped as having received on October 15, 1996.   
 
 
drug abuse. 
 
 
served two years, five months, and fifteen days on active duty. 
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
 
 
Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant applied to the DRB to have his 
general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  upgraded  to  an  honorable  discharge.    The  DRB 
also considered whether the applicant’s reason for discharge, narrative reason for discharge, and 
reenlistment code should be changed.   
 
 
The  DRB  issued  its  report  on  November  21,  2005,  and  did  not  grant  any  relief  to  the 
applicant.  According to the DRB report, the applicant stated the following with respect to his 
discharge:   
 

My  service  discharge  was  inequitable  because  the  failure  of  the  test  was  a 
mistake.  I have never before or since failed a drug test.  I have been employed by 
the  same  company  for  eight  years.    I  successfully  passed  the  employer’s  pre-
employment  drug  screening  and  have  participated  in  the  random  screening 
program.   
 

In denying relief to the applicant, the DRB discussion and conclusion were as follows: 
 

[DRB]  members  thoroughly  reviewed  the  applicant’s  record  of  service  and  all 
available  documentation.    The  Board  felt  that  the  discharge  was  carried  out  in 
accordance with Coast Guard policy.  The applicant tested positive for THC at 17 

ng (the threshold was and is currently 15 ng), although a blood test less than thirty 
days  later  showed  no  drugs  in  the  applicant’s  system.    The  applicant  strongly 
maintained his innocence since the positive test that took place eight years ago.  
However, the applicant presented no evidence that the test was done incorrectly or 
improperly.  Accordingly, the [DRB] found no reason to upgrade the applicant’s 
character of service.   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On February 28, 2007, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General (JAG), recommending that the Board deny the applicant's request for relief.  The JAG 
adopted the facts and analysis provided by CGPC, which was attached as enclosure (1) to the 
advisory opinion.   
 
CGPC stated that under Article 20.C.3.e. of the Personnel Manual a determination of a 
 
drug incident can be conclusively made based upon a positive urinalysis test. CGPC stated that 
while  the  applicant  denies  any  illegal  drug  use,  the  Coast  Guard  followed  well  established 
procedures in the urinalysis and application of policy regarding his discharge.   CGPC further 
stated that one of the purposes of the Coast Guard’s Alcohol and Substance Abuse program is to 
“Detect and separate from the Coast Guard those members who abuse, traffic in or unlawfully 
possess  illegal  drugs.”    CGPC  noted  that  the  DRB  unanimously  ruled  that  the  applicant’s 
discharge should remain unchanged.  CGPC further stated as follows: 
 

Allowing members of the Coast Guard to abuse illicit drugs and continue to serve 
runs counter to the Service’s core values and is completely inconsistent with the 
Coast  Guard’s  maritime  law  enforcement  mission  whereby  the  organization 
conducts  counter-drug  operations  each  and  every  day  of  the  year.      The  only 
authorized  reenlistment  code  for  any  misconduct  discharge  is  RE-4.    [Article 
12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual] prescribes a discharge of “no higher than 
a general discharge” for involvement with drugs.  Given the applicant’s character 
of  service  “under  Honorable  Conditions”  it  would  be  inconsistent  to  assign  a 
reenlistment code other than RE-4 in conjunction with a general discharge.   

 

 
 
 

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On February 28, 2007, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant for any 

 
 
response that he wanted to make.  The BCMR did not receive a response from the applicant. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

Involvement with Drugs.  Any member involved in a drug incident or the illegal, 
wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction  onto  military 
installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard 
with no higher than a general discharge.  Commanding Officer, Training Center 

 
 
Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  section  two,  authorizes  only  the 
assignment  of  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  for  the  JKK  separation  code.    The  SPD  Handbook 
states  that  the  JKK  separation  code  is  appropriate  when  there  is  an  "[i]nvoluntary  discharge 
directed  by  established  directive  (no  board  entitlement)  when  a  member  is  involved  in  drug 
abuse." 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
submissions and military record, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law: 
 

Cape May is delegated 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  the  presence  of  drugs  in  their  bodies  is 
grounds for a general discharge for misconduct. 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of title  10  United 
States  Code.    The  application  was  timely.    An  applicant  has  fifteen  years  from  the  date  of 
discharge to apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The 
applicant  was  required  to  exhaust  his  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  DRB  before 
filing an application with the Board.  See 33 CFR § 52.13.  According to Ortiz v. Secretary of 
Defense, 41 F. 3rd. 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.   The applicant applied to the DRB approximately nine years after his 
discharge,  and  the  DRB  issued  a  final  decision  on  November  21,  2005.    Therefore,  the 
applicant's BCMR application, received by the Board on November 8, 2006, was timely. 
 

2.    First,  the  Board  notes  the  applicant  requested  only  that  his  reenlistment  code  be 
changed  to  allow  him  to  serve  in  the  armed  service.    Although  the  applicant  alleged  he  was 
erroneously discharged, he did not ask that his general discharge under honorable conditions be 
upgraded to honorable; nor did he ask that misconduct/drug abuse be removed as the reason for 
his discharge.  Moreover, he presented no evidence, except for his own statement.  Therefore, the 
Board  addresses  only  whether  the  assignment  of  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  was  in  error  or 
unjust. 

 
3.    The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  in  assigning  him  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  upon  his  discharge.  
While in the Coast Guard, the applicant provided a urine specimen that tested positive for illegal 
drugs.  He was subsequently discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions due 
to misconduct/drug abuse. Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states that any member 
involved in a drug incident or the illegal, wrongful, or improper sale, transfer, manufacture, or 
introduction onto military installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the 
Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.  Moreover, when the applicant enlisted, he 
signed a page 7 entry warning him that the illegal use of drugs would result in discharge from the 
Coast Guard.   Since the applicant has not shown that his discharge by reason of misconduct due 

to drug abuse was in error or unjust, the Board has no basis on which to upgrade the reenlistment 
code.  In this regard, the Board finds that the SPD handbook authorizes only the assignment of 
only an RE-4 reenlistment code with the JKK (drug use/abuse) separation code. 

 
4.  The  applicant  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  case.  Accordingly,  relief 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
should be denied.  
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

The application of former SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn