DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-040 
 
XXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxx,  SR/E-1 (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 December 4, 2006, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  28,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1) who served approximately 
two months in the Coast Guard before being honorably discharged for a back problem which 
existed  prior  to  his  enlistment,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his 
reenlistment code from RE-4 (ineligible for reenlistment) to one that would allow him to reenlist 
in  the  Armed  Forces.1    The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  an  immature  18  year  old  when  he 
enlisted in the Coast Guard and “was not ready to be separated from his sick mother.”  He further 
stated that in the years following his discharge he has matured and feels that he can serve his 
country “faithfully and honorably.” 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on May 23, 1988, at the age of 18.  Shortly 
after reporting to Training Center (TRACEN) Cape May for recruit training, the applicant was 
evaluated numerous times at sick call for an assortment of medical complaints, including foot, 
ear, and back pain.  During several of these visits, he stated that he was dissatisfied with recruit 
training, lacked motivation, and wanted to be discharged from the Coast Guard.  On June 28, 

                                                 
1 The Board presumes that the applicant would prefer that his RE-4 reenlistment code be upgraded to RE-1, which 
would make him eligible for reenlistment in any of the Armed Forces. 
 

1988, the applicant was diagnosed by an orthopedic surgeon as suffering from “lumbar syndrome 
with  functional  overlay.”    The  doctor  determined  that  the  applicant  was  not  a  candidate  for 
continued training and recommended that he be referred to a Medical Board to determine if he 
was fit for duty.   

 
On June 29, 1988, a Medical Board convened and determined that the applicant did not 
meet  the  minimum  standard  for  enlistment  in  the  Coast  Guard  because  he  had  a  history  of 
chronic or recurrent low back pain that existed prior to enlistment.  The Medical Board recom-
mended that he be discharged from the Coast Guard.  The applicant concurred with that recom-
mendation. 

 
On July 13, 1988, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant to Article 
12.B.12.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    He  received  a  discharge  characterized  as 
“honorable,”  a  separation  code  of  JFC,2  and  “Enlisted  in  Error”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation.  The record indicates that the applicant received an RE-4 reenlistment code.  He had 
served 52 days in the Coast Guard. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 24, 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 correct the applicant’s reenlistment code from RE-4 to 
RE-3E3 and change the narrative reason for separation from “Enlisted in Error” to “Erroneous 
Entry.”  CGPC stated that although the  application was untimely, the  applicant’s reenlistment 
code should be changed because the assignment of an RE-4 code was in error.  CGPC noted that 
under the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook in effect at the time of the applicant’s 
discharge, RE-3E was the prescribed reenlistment code for a member discharged with the JFC 
SPD code, and the proper narrative reason for separation was “Erroneous Entry (Other).”   
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 27, 2006, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
and invited him to respond within 30 days.  In his response, the applicant stated that he did not 
object to the Coast Guard’s recommendations. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article  12.B.12.a.5.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  the  Commander,  CGPC, 
may  authorize  or  direct  enlisted  members  to  separate  for  the  convenience  of  the  government 
when a  “member undergoing recruit training in an original enlistment  who has fewer than 60 

 

                                                 
2  JFC  denotes  an  “involuntary  discharge  directed  by  established  directive  when  a  member  erroneously  enlisted, 
reenlisted, extended, or was inducted into a Service component (not related to alcohol or drug abuse).  Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) Handbook, 2-29.  
3  RE-3E  indicates  that  the  member  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  a  disqualifying  factor  (erroneous 
enlistment).  SPD Handbook, 3-1. 

days’ active service has a physical disability not incurred in or aggravated by a period of active 
military service; i.e., the defect existed before the member entered the Service.” 

 
 
The  SPD  Handbook  lists  the  SPD  Code,  narrative  reason  for  separation,  and  the 
reenlistment code authorized for a member discharged under Article 12.B.12. for an erroneous 
entry, not related to alcohol or drug abuse.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the proper 
SPD Code for a member discharged under Article 12.B.12.a.5.c. for an erroneous entry was JFC, 
the correct narrative reason for separation was “Erroneous Entry (Other)”, and the only available 
reenlistment code was RE-3E.   
 

 

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. 

 
3. 

10 of the United States Code.   
 

2. 

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 his record.  The applicant received his dis-
charge and RE-4 reenlistment code in 1988, but did not state why he waited 18 years to seek a 
correction to his record.  The Board notes that the applicant’s DD 214, which has his signature, 
clearly indicates RE-4 as his reenlistment code.  Thus, the Board finds that he knew or should 
have known that he would not be allowed to reenlist prior to or upon his discharge in 1988.4  
Therefore, his application was untimely. 

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 applicant did not explain why he 
waited 18 years before applying to the Board.  However, a cursory review of the record reveals 
that  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  erroneously  bears  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  contrary  to  the 
requirements of the Coast Guard’s SPD Handbook.   In addition, the SPD Handbook indicates 
that the applicant’s DD 214 should state “Erroneous Enlistment (Other)” as the narrative reason 
for separation, rather than “Enlisted in Error.”  Moreover, the JAG recommended that the Board 
upgrade  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3E  and  correct  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation.  In light of the obvious and prejudicial errors on the applicant’s DD 214, the Board 
finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations. 
 

The Board finds that the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected to conform to the 
requirements of the SPD Handbook.  His reenlistment code  should be RE-3E and “Erroneous 
Enlistment (Other)” should be his narrative reason for separation.  The Coast Guard should issue 
the applicant a new DD 214 with these changes. 
                                                 
4  “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. 

4. 

5.  Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  making  the  following  corrections  to  the 

applicant’s DD 214 and other military records: 

 

 

■ 

■ 

 
 
  

 
Block  27  of  his  DD  214  shall  be  corrected  to  show  RE-3E  as  the  reenlistment 
code. 

Block 28 of his DD 214 shall be corrected to show “Erroneous Entry (Other)” as 
the narrative reason for separation. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 

The application of former SR XXXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 
his military record is granted.  The Coast Guard shall issue him a new DD 214 (not a DD 215) to 
show the following: 
 

■ 

Block  27  of  his  DD  214  shall  be  corrected  to  show  RE-3E  as  the  reenlistment 
code. 

■ 

Block 28 of his DD 214 shall be corrected to show “Erroneous Entry (Other)” as 
the narrative reason for separation. 

 The following notation shall be made in Block 18 of the new DD 214:  “Action taken 

 

 

 
 

 
 

pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 
 
 Richard Walter