DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-051 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxx,  ANAET/E-3 (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 19, 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 July 31, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed members 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former airman avionics electrical technician (ANAET; pay grade E-3) 
who served more than three  years in the Coast Guard before being discharged for misconduct 
(marijuana use), asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his “general” discharge to 
“honorable” so he can apply for Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits.1  He stated that his 
discharge was “inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 39 months of active 
duty service with no other adverse action.”  He alleged that he was coerced by two Coast Guard 
investigators into admitting that he had smoked marijuana on more than one occasion and that 
“everyone was out to pin me with this so instead of fighting it I chose to agree and save everyone 
a lot of time and effort.”  He further alleged that he was “in close contact with people smoking 
marijuana the days before the random urinalysis” and that he regrets this “one lapse.”       
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  December  10,  2002.    On  December  24, 
2002, he signed a form to enroll in the Montgomery G.I. Bill program, under which a members’ 
                                                 
1  A  veteran  must  receive  an  honorable  discharge  to  be  eligible  for  education  benefits  from  the  Department  of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA).  38 U.S.C. § 3011.  Carr v. Brown, United States Court of Veterans Appeals, 5 Vet. App. 
2;  1993  U.S.  Vet.  App.  (March  29,  1993)(explaining  that  a  veteran  was  ineligible  for  DVA  education  benefits 
because he received a general discharge). 
 

basic  pay  is  reduced  by  $100  for  each  of  their  first  12  months  of  service,  but  they  become 
eligible  for  $10,800  in  educational  benefits.    The  form  states  that,  in  addition  to  the  payroll 
reduction, the member must complete at least 36 months of active duty and receive an honorable 
discharge to be eligible for the benefit.  The form also states that the pay reduction cannot be 
refunded. 

 
On  November  21,  2005,  the  applicant  participated  in  a  random  urinalysis,  and  on 
December 9, 2005, the specimen provided by the applicant tested positive for THC at a level of 
30 ng/ml.2  

 
On  January  20,  2006,  the  applicant’s  Commander  notified  him  that  he  was  being 
discharged from the Coast Guard because of his involvement with illegal drugs as indicated by 
the urinalysis conducted on November 21, 2005.   

 
On  January  27,  2006,  a  Page  73  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record  by  his  unit’s 
Executive Officer, notifying him that the results of the urinalysis constituted a drug incident and 
that this was in direct violation of U.S. Coast Guard regulations.  The Page 7 further stated that 
pending  the  outcome  of  an  investigation,  he  may  be  processed  for  separation  due  to  his 
involvement with illegal drugs. 

 
On January 27, 2006, the Commander of the applicant’s unit sent a memorandum to the 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  wherein  he  recommended  that  the  applicant  be 
administratively discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of misconduct.  

 
On  March  10,  2006,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  pursuant  to 
Article 12.B.18. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  He received a discharge characterized as 
“general,” a separation code of JKK,4 and “misconduct” as the narrative reason for separation.  
The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  received  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  (ineligible  for 
reenlistment).   

 
Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  to  the 
Coast Guard’s Discharge Review Board (DRB)5 for an upgrade of his character of service from 
“general” to “honorable.”  On June 6, 2006, the DRB denied the applicant's request, stating that 
                                                 
2 In its advisory opinion, the Coast Guard noted that the threshold for THC is 15 ng/ml.  See Article 20.C.6. of the 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual. 
3 A  CG-3307 (Administrative  Remarks, or Page 7) entry documents any counseling that is provided to a service 
member as well as any other noteworthy events that occur during that member’s military career. 
4 JKK denotes an involuntary discharge directed by established directive when a member who commits drug abuse, 
which is the illegal wrongful or improper use, possession, sale, transfer or introduction on a military installation of 
any narcotic substance, intoxicating inhaled substance, marijuana, or controlled substance, as established by 21 USC 
812… The SPD Handbook also requires that an  RE-4 reenlistment code and a  narrative reason  for separation of 
“Misconduct”  be  assigned  to  members  being  discharged  with  the  JKK  separation  code.    Separation  Program 
Designator (SPD) Handbook, 2-56.  
5 The DRB is a board consisting of five members of the U.S. Coast Guard, appointed by the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard, and vested with the authority to review the discharge of a former member.  The board is empowered to 
change a discharge or issue a new discharge to reflect its  findings,  subject to review by the  Commandant or the 
Secretary.  33 C.F.R. § 51.4. 
 

his discharge had been carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy and that his character 
of service listed on his DD 214 was proper.  On September 5, 2006, the Commandant reviewed 
the DRB’s decision and approved its finding that the applicant’s DD 214 should stand as issued. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 1, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings provided in a memorandum on the case by 
CGPC and recommended that the  Board deny  the applicant’s request.   CGPC argued that the 
applicant was involved in a drug incident and his subsequent discharge was in accordance with 
Coast  Guard  policy  for  processing  members  for  misconduct.    CGPC  asserted  that  “[a]llowing 
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.”  CGPC also noted that although the applicant argued that his performance prior 
to his drug incident negates the impact of the incident in defining his character of service, the 
“service policy dictates no greater than a general discharge in the applicant’s case.” 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 3, 2007, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

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

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article  12.B.18.b.4.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  any  member 
involved in a drug incident or the illegal, wrongful, or improper sale, transfer, manufacture, or 
introduction onto a military installation of any drug will be processed for separation from the 
Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.   
 

Article 12.B.18.e. of the Manual provides that when discharging a member with fewer 
than  eight  years  service  for  misconduct,  Commanding  Officers  shall  inform  the  member  in 
writing of the reason(s) for being considered for discharge, afford the member an opportunity to 
make  a  written  statement,  and  afford  the  member  an  opportunity  to  consult  with  a  lawyer  as 
defined if contemplating a general discharge.  
 

Article  20.A.2.k.1.  of  the  Manual  states  that  the  intentional  use  of  drugs  constitutes  a 
“drug  incident  as  determined  by  the  commanding  officer.”    Article  20.A.2.k.2.  states  that  a 
“member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded NJP [non-
judicial punishment] for the conduct to be considered a drug incident.” 

 
Article  20.C.3.a.  of  the  Manual  provides  that  “[c]ommanding  officers  shall  initiate  an 
investigation into a possible drug incident, as defined in Article 20.A.2, following receipt of a 
positive  confirmed  urinalysis  result  or  any  other  evidence  of  drug  abuse.    The  absence  of  a 
positive confirmed urinalysis result does not preclude taking  action based on other evidence.”  
Article 20.C.3.c. states that “[b]efore being questioned in relation to a drug incident, members 

are  entitled  to  be  advised  of  their  rights  under  Article  31,  UCMJ  [Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice].  This applies whether or not disciplinary action under the UCMJ is contemplated.” 
 

Article  20.C.3.e.  of  the  Manual  states  that  “[t]he  findings  of  a  drug  incident  shall  be 
determined by the commanding officer … using the preponderance of evidence standard. … A 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  refers  to  its  quality  and  persuasiveness,  not  the  number  of 
witnesses  or  documentation.  A  member's  admission  of  drug  use  or  a  positive  confirmed  test 
result, standing alone, may be sufficient to establish intentional use and thus suffice to meet this 
burden of proof.” 

 
Article 20.C.4. of the Manual states that “[i]f after completing the investigation described 
in Article 20.C.3, the commanding officer determines that a drug incident did occur, he or she 
will take these actions:” 

 
1. Administrative Action. Commands will process the member for separation by reason of miscon-
duct under Articles 12.A.11., 12.A.15., 12.A.21., or 12.B.18., as appropriate. … 
 
2. Disciplinary Action. Members who commit drug offenses are subject to disciplinary action 
under the UCMJ in addition to any required administrative discharge action. 

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.  The application is timely.  

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his general discharge so he can apply 
for Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits.  He argued that his discharge from the Coast Guard 
was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 39 months of active duty service 
and that he previously had no other adverse actions against him.  He also alleged that he was 
coerced by the Coast Guard into admitting that he used marijuana more than once.  The applicant 
did not support this allegation with any evidence. 

Under  33  C.F.R.  § 52.24(b),  the  Board  begins  its  consideration  of  each  case 
presuming administrative regularity on the part of Coast Guard officials.  Therefore, the Board 
must  determine  whether  the  applicant  has  overcome  this  presumption  and  proved  that  his 
commanding officer (CO) erred or committed an injustice in determining that a preponderance of 
the  evidence  indicated  that  the  applicant  had  been  involved  in  a  drug  incident  by  wrongfully 
using  marijuana.    The  applicant  must  prove  this  alleged  error  or  injustice  by  his  CO  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence.  
 

The record indicates that the applicant’s urine tested positive for marijuana use 
after a random urinalysis on November 21, 2005.  On January 20, 2006, he was informed that he 
was  being  discharged  for  misconduct  because  his  urinalysis  tested  positive  for  an  illegal 
substance.  On January 27, 2006, the applicant acknowledged the notification and that he had 

4. 

 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

5. 

been provided  with the  opportunity to consult with a lawyer.  The applicant did not submit a 
statement on his behalf, but indicated that he objected to the discharge.   
 

The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his 
discharge for drug use was in any way erroneous or unjust or that he was denied any due process 
pursuant to his discharge under Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual.  The record shows that 
after his urine tested positive for illegal drug use, he was notified of his pending discharge and 
given a chance to submit a statement on his own behalf and to consult an attorney.  Moreover, 
under Article 12.B.18.b.4., a  general discharge is the only discharge authorized for a member 
discharged due to illegal drug use.  Therefore, the applicant has not proved that his receipt of a 
general discharge is erroneous or unjust and this case does not constitute “treatment by military 
authorities that shocks the sense of justice.”  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)). 
 

6. 
 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  ANAET  XXXXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

   
 

correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer