DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-135 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 May 25, 2007, upon 
receipt  of  the  applicant's  his  military  record,  and  subsequently  prepared  this  decision  for  the 
Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 21, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by removing “homosexual act” as the 
reason  for  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  and  by  upgrading  his  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  to  RE-1  (eligible  for  reenlistment).    The  applicant  further 
requested that he be credited with 18 months of additional active service and the corresponding 
back pay so that he can benefit from the Montgomery G.I. Bill. 
 

The  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  an  honorable  discharge  by 
reason  of  “homosexual  act.”    He  was  assigned  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  and  a  JRA 
(homosexual act) separation code.1 The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 2, 2002 
and was discharged on September 9, 2004. 
 

 
On June 17, 2004, the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) began an investigation 
into  allegations  that  the  applicant  and  another  male  shipmate  were  suspected  of  committing 

BACKGROUND 

 

                                                 
1      The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook  states  that  the  JRA  separation  code  is  assigned  to  a 
member who has engaged in or attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act and is 
involuntary discharged with no board entitlement.    

 

sodomy  with  each  other.      (A  redacted  copy  of  the  summary  of  the  CGIS  investigation  was 
submitted by the applicant and is discussed under the allegations portion of this decision.) 
 

 
On July 13, 2004, the CO informed the applicant that procedures had been initiated to 
discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard for homosexual conduct.  The CO informed the 
applicant that three witnesses had made official statements that they had either seen the applicant 
and  another  male  crew  member  engage  in  homosexual  acts,  viewed  the  applicant  performing 
homosexual  acts  on  a  videotape,  or  both.    The CO  informed  the  applicant  that  the  witnesses’ 
statements were taken by  CGIS and that he deemed them to be credible.  The CO stated that 
under the Personnel Manual such statements create a rebuttable presumption that the applicant 
engages  in  homosexual  acts  and  that  the  statements  establish  probable  cause  to  separate  him 
from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
The CO informed the applicant that he had the right to rebut the presumption before an 
administrative discharge board (ADB) of at least three officers. He also informed the applicant 
that he had the right to be represented by a military attorney before the ADB or by a civilian 
attorney at his own expense.  The applicant also had the right to waive the ADB and/or submit a 
statement  on  his  behalf.    The  applicant  was  informed  that  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) had final approval of any recommended discharge and the type of 
discharge the applicant would receive.   
 
 
On July 13, 2004, the applicant signed a statement acknowledging that he had the right to 
present his case to an ADB, to be represented by counsel, and to submit a statement in his behalf.  
In his signed statement, the applicant also waived his right to a hearing before an ADB, the right 
to submit a statement in his behalf, and the right to counsel.  He also affirmed his understanding 
that a discharge  “under  other than honorable conditions,” if awarded, would probably deprive 
him of many or all of his rights as a veteran under both federal and state legislation.  He verified 
that he voluntarily signed the statement waiving his rights.   
 
 
On July 23, 2004, the applicant was punished at captain’s mast for violating Article 134 
of  the  UCMJ  in  that  he  performed  indecent  acts  with  another  in  the  presence  of  other  Coast 
Guard personnel.  He was also punished for writing bad checks to the ship’s store, a violation of 
Article 134.  Prior to the mast, the CO had appointed a preliminary investigating officer (PIO) to 
investigate the allegations against the applicant.  The CGIS investigation was listed as reference 
(d) of the PIO’s investigation.  Of concern are the PIO’s findings and opinions with respect to the 
indecent  acts.    The  PIO  found  that  the  applicant  denied  participation  in  the  acts  that  were 
described in the CGIS investigation.  He also found that the applicant believed that SN A made 
up the story due to their dispute about rent.  The PIO offered the following opinion: 
 

[SN B] and [the applicant] are either guilty of the charge of Article 134; indecent 
acts with another or they are victims of shipmates conspiring to implicate them in 
the  alleged  offenses.    The  degree  of  planning  and  conspiring  necessary  to 
fabricate  the  details  associated  with  this  allege  offense  is  too  extensive  to 
reasonably believe that this was the case.   

 

ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant prepared a written statement for the PIO.  He stated that SN A could have 
gone into his room without his permission and obtained some video tapes.   However, he had no 
such tapes that showed the conduct about which SN A described to CGIS.  He denied that there 
was any evidence of him being a homosexual because he was not one.   
 
 
 
On  August  12,  2004,  LCDR  H  (CGPC-epm-1),  in  a  memorandum  “Personal  for 
Commanding Officer’s Eyes Only,” directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable 
discharge by reason of homosexual conduct under Article 12.E.6 of the Personnel Manual.  The 
LCDR also directed that the applicant’s DD Form 214 show HRA as the separation code and 
“homosexual” as the narrative reason for discharge.  He directed that the applicant surrender his 
uniform,  that  he  receive  transition  benefits,  and  that  no  recoupment  occur  for  any  unearned 
portion of an enlistment or selective reenlistment bonus.      
 
 
Board on May 7, 2007. 
 

The applicant was discharged on September 9, 2004, and filed his application with the 

 
The applicant alleged that despite his solid military record and generosity towards fellow 
shipmates,  he  was  not  immune  to  salacious  rumors  regarding  his  off-duty  conduct  or  sexual 
preferences.    He  alleged  that  the  command  overly  relied  on  inconsistent  statements  from 
witnesses who were biased against him and on the lack of any physical evidence to support the 
rumors.   
 
 
On  June  17,  2004,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  requested  that  the  Coast 
Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) investigate allegations of sodomy between the applicant and 
SN  B.    The  sodomy  allegedly  occurred  in  front  SN  A  and  one  of  her  friends.    SN  A,  the 
applicant, and SN B shared a residence at one point.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that the main witness against him, SN A, was a female shipmate 
who was in a monetary dispute with him about rent.  According to the applicant, the dispute with 
SN  A  was  whether  he  agreed  to  let  her  live  rent  free  in  the  house  with  him  and SN  B.    The 
applicant stated that his agreement with SN A was that she could live in the premises for one 
month before paying the back rent she owed.  He stated that at the time of his captain’s mast for 
indecent acts and for dishonorably failing to pay his debt to the ship’s store by writing three bad 
checks, SN A had moved out of the house and had not paid the rent owed to the applicant.   He 
also  suggested  that  SN  A’s  statement  against  him  may  have  been  motivated  by  his  negative 
reactions  to  her  romantic  advances.    The  applicant  also  submitted  a  statement  from  BT  who 
stated that in June while he was standing the 2000 to 2400 watch, SN A came aboard.  BT stated 
that SN A asked about seeing the chief.  BT stated that when he asked SN A if anything was 
wrong, she replied that she was fine but that she had to talk to the chief about SN B and the 
applicant stealing some things from her locker.  According to BT, SN A further stated that she 
was upset and that she was going to f___ the applicant and SN B.   
 

 
  The applicant further argued that SN A’s CGIS statement was not credible because it 
contained inconsistencies with her subsequent statement to the PIO or with the statements of the 
other witnesses.  The applicant noted the following inconsistencies in SN A’s statement: 
 

•  That SN A stated to CGIS that she moved in with the applicant because she was told that 
she did not have to pay rent,  but stated in a follow-up statement to the command that she 
moved in so that she could own a pet.    

•  That  SN  A  wrote  in  her  CGIS  statement  that  she  witnessed  the  applicant  and  SN  B 
engaging  in  indecent  acts  in  the  living  room  of  the  home.    However  SN  A’s  friend’s 
CGIS statement mentioned nothing of a sex act occurring in the downstairs living room, 
but rather occurring in the upstairs bedroom.  

 

 

•  That  SN  A  stated  that  she  and  her  female  friend  watched  about  15  minutes  of  video 
showing  the  applicant  engaging  in  certain  sex  acts  with  SN  B,  but  her  friend’s  CGIS 
statement made no mention SN A watching 15 minutes of video.  Moreover, the applicant 
stated that these alleged video tapes, which the applicant stated she had in her possession 
for a period of time, were never recovered or viewed by CGIS. 

 
 
The applicant stated that SN A was merely an acquaintance and it is not reasonable to 
believe  that  he  would  allow  her  to  stay  in  a  house  he  was  renting  completely  rent  free, 
particularly in light of his own financial hardship.   
 
 
The applicant argued that because of the glaring inconsistencies between SN A and her 
friend’s  statements,  it  is  not  hard  to  imagine  the  great  likelihood  that  both  women  were  “in 
cahoots” and that the video tapes never, in fact, existed.  The applicant offered the following as a 
review of his arguments: 
 

[T]he prime witness in the case is someone who was in a significant monetary 
dispute over unpaid rent to [the applicant] and who instead spent the money on 
an $850 dog  . . . According [to the statement of SN B] to CGIS investigators, 
SN  A  “had  an  attraction  to  [the  applicant]  that  was  not  mutual  and  she  is 
vindictive  and  intentionally  spreads  rumors  about  .  .  .  [the  applicant’s] 
sexuality.”    .  .  .  To  his  credit,  the  investigating  officer  does  recognize  that 
Coast  Guard  member  [BT’s]  unsolicited  written  statement  “alludes  to  a 
possibility  that  SN  A  has  a  motive  to  get  SN  B  and  [the  applicant]  into 
trouble.” 

 
[BT] came forward when he found out that SN A was involved because he felt it 
was the right thing to do. . . . Clearly, the investigating officer failed to appreciate 
the sinister motives of SN A in this case.  Had he further explored the drastically 
inconsistent  witness  statements,  the  close  personal  relationship  of  four  women 
making  the  salacious  claims,  and  the  utter  lack  of  physical  evidence,  he  would 
have come to the correct conclusion that the weight of an Article 134 (indecent 
acts)  charge  could  not  be  sustained  by  the  flimsy  and  sloppy  conspiracy  set  in 
notion by a female shipmate with an axe to grind.     

 

  * 

* 

* 

 
[The applicant] provided over two  years of faithful service to the Coast Guard.  
On  his  DD  214,  which  he  must  show  to  all  future  employers  or  institutions  of 
higher learning, it states that the reason for his separation was for participating in 
a homosexual act.  This is patently unfair and unjust given that: 1) no physical 
evidence  exists  of  such  an  act;  2)  [the  applicant]  never  made  a  statement  to 
investigators or his chain of command that he committed any such act; and 3) the 
primary witness of this alleged act was a female shipmate in a monetary dispute 
with [the applicant] who may have ultimately been angered after [the applicant] 
rebuffed  her  romantic  advances.    This  Board  has  authority  and  more  than 
sufficient justification to correct this injustice done to [the applicant] and grant the 
requested relief.   

 
Redacted Copy of CGIS Investigation 
 
 
The  portion  of  the  CGIS  investigation  provided  by  the  applicant  is  heavily 
redacted  and  very  confusing.  The  investigation  appears  to  contain  a  summary  of  six 
statements:  one  each  from  SN  A,  and  SN  B,  and  a  statement  from  each  of  four  other 
individuals referred to as acquaintances of SN A.  The CGIS statements are summarized 
as follows:   
 
 
1.  SN A stated to CGIS that she moved in with the applicant and SN B because 
she was told that she did not have to pay rent. She stated that after she moved in she saw 
the applicant and SN B grab each other in a flirtatious manner and that she observed them 
kissing.  She stated that one evening in mid-May a friend of hers was visiting and they 
saw  SN  B  perform  oral  sex  on  the  applicant  in the  living  room,  at  which  point  SN  A 
quickly left the room.  She stated that when she returned she stated that her friend who 
had  gone  upstairs  to  the  applicant’s  room  called  for  SN  A.      When  she  got  up  to  the 
applicant’s room, he had a video tape playing on which she saw the applicant and SN B 
having oral sex.  She stated that she watched the video for only about fifteen minutes, 
although there appeared to be about two hours of video.  
 
 
2. Acquaintance # 1stated that during a port call in Honolulu, she observed the 
applicant and SN B kissing.  She stated that she considered herself to be friends with SN 
A. 
 
 
engage in any homosexual activity.    
 
 
4.  Acquaintance # 3 stated that she accompanied SN A and another friend to the 
applicant’s residence and that SN A and the other person went up stairs to the applicant’s 
room to locate the video tapes.  Acquaintance # 3 stated that SN A and the other friend 
found  five  or  six  tapes  and  brought  them  downstairs  to  show  her.    Acquaintance  #  3 
stated that they watched the video tapes using the video camera.  She stated that she saw 

3.  Acquaintance # 2 stated that she had never observed the applicant and SN B 

the  applicant  and  SN  B  having  anal  intercourse  on  one  of  the  video  tapes  and  the 
applicant involved in a “threesome” that included SN B on the other.   
 
 
5.    Acquaintance  #  4  stated  that  she  went  to  the  applicant’s  house  sometime 
between May 15, 2004 and May 25, 2004.  The subject of a video tape of the applicant 
and  SN  B  having  sex  came  up.    The  witness  stated  that  she  went  upstairs  and  the 
applicant played the video for her.  She stated that the video had scenes of the applicant 
and SN B having anal intercourse.  She stated that SN B then performed oral sex on the 
applicant in her presence.    
 

6.  SN B who was allegedly involved in homosexual acts with the applicant stated 
to CGIS that SN A was attracted to the applicant, but the applicant was not interested.  
SN B stated that as a result of the applicant’s lack of interest in SN A, he believed the SN 
A became vindictive and began spreading rumors about the applicant’s and his sexuality.  
SN  B  denied  having  a  homosexual  relationship  with  the  applicant  and  denied  the 
existence of any sexually explicit videos involving the applicant and himself.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 11, 2007, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General  (JAG),  recommending  that  the  Board  accept  the  comments  from  CGPC  as  the  Coast 
Guard’s advisory opinion in this case.   
 

CGPC recommended only that the applicant’s DD form 214 be corrected by changing the 
separation authority in block 25 from “COMDTINST M1000.6 Article 12-B-18 (misconduct) to 
COMDTINST M1000.6 Article 12.E.5 (homosexual) and the separation code in block 26 from 
JRA to HRA. 2 

 
CGPC stated that the applicant presents numerous arguments to support his assertion that 
the witnesses who claimed to have seen him engaging in homosexual activity were retaliating 
against the applicant because one of the witnesses was in a monetary dispute with him.  CGPC 
stated however that the applicant freely waived his ADB, which was the appropriate venue for 
him to refute the allegations that he engaged in homosexual conduct.  The ADB is the forum in 
which the applicant could have had a hearing to rebut the  allegations and representation by  a 
military  lawyer.    CGPC  argued  that  in  the  absence  of  an  ADB  hearing,  which  the  applicant 
waived, the Coast Guard is presumed to have acted correctly.   CGPC stated that the applicant 
was afforded all due process and elected not to have his concerns addressed by an ADB.   

 
With respect to the applicant’s request to have his reenlistment code upgraded to RE-1, 
CGPC  argued  that  the  assigned  RE-4  reenlistment  code  is  the  only  code  authorized  for 
homosexual conduct or misconduct discharges and the RE-4 code is consistent with Coast Guard 
policy.  CGPC further stated that the applicant’s DD Form 214 properly lists “homosexual acts” 

                                                 
2    The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)    Handbook  states  that  the  HRA  separation  code  is  assigned    to  a 
member who has engaged in or attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act and is 
involuntary discharged in lieu of further processing or convening of a board (board waiver).   

as the reason for the applicant’s discharge.  CGPC stated the reason listed on the applicant’s DD 
Form  214  is  consistent  with  the  discharge  directions  from  CGPC-epm-1  and  COMDTINST 
M1900.4D. 

 
As indicated earlier, CGPC noted some technical errors on the applicant’s DD Form 214 
and recommended that those be corrected.  CGPC did not recommend further relief and stated 
that  the  information  presented  in  the  BCMR  application  is  not  new  information  and  was 
available to the applicant prior to waiving his ADB.  CGPC noted that in the applicant’s waiver 
of a hearing he stated that he did not object to the discharge for homosexual acts.   
  

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 5, 2007, the BCMR received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard.  The applicant argued that his application should be granted.  
 
 
The applicant argued that while the Coast Guard recommends denial of the application, it 
failed to address the applicant’s arguments.  The applicant stated that the Board has “an abiding 
moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to 
take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.”  Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383, 1387-88 (Ct. 
Cl. 1975).   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  following  quote  from  the  advisory  opinion,  blatantly 
acknowledges  the  fact  that  the  applicant  not  only  has  arguments  to  affirm  the  fact  that  the 
allegations made against him were falsified, but that he has support to confirm his arguments: 
 

The applicant alleges that the statements made to investigators by the witnesses 
were submitted in retaliation over a monetary dispute between the applicant and 
one  of  the  witnesses  along  with  the  applicant’s  not  being  receptive  to  the 
witness’s romantic desires for him.  The applicant presents numerous arguments 
to  support  this  assertion.  [Emphasis  added.]    However,  the  applicant  freely 
waived  his  Administrative  Discharge  Board  (ADB)  which  was  the  appropriate 
venue to refute the allegations made against him.   

 
 
The  applicant  disagreed  with  CGPC  that  because  he  waived  his  ADB  that  he  is  not 
entitled to relief.  The applicant stated that it is the duty of the Board to see that justice is served 
to those who have suffered injustice.  The applicant stated that the waiver of his ADB does not 
mean he should not obtain relief under 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 
 
The applicant stated that as noted by the  advisory  opinion, he presents support for his 
case.  The applicant stated that there is no credible evidence against him.  He argued that the only 
evidence  against  him  is  hearsay  that  was  given  by  complainants  who  had  more  than  enough 
reason to be dishonest.  
 
The applicant’s  argued that the  assigned RE-4 reenlistment code may  be in  agreement 
 
with Coast Guard policy, but it does not hold any basis for him.  He argued that there is nothing 

to confirm that he was involved in any homosexual behavior.  Therefore, he argued that his DD-
214 should reflect an RE-1 reenlistment code and that he should be granted the requested relief. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 12.E.3.1. of the Personnel Manual states a service member shall be separated if he 
or she has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act 
or acts, unless there are approved further findings of all these: 
 

a. Such acts depart from the member’s usual, customary behavior;  
 
b. Such acts under all circumstances are unlikely to recur; 
 
c. Such acts were not accomplished by using force, coercion, or intimidation; 
 
d. Under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the 
Coast  Guard  is  consistent  with  the  Coast  Guard’s  interests  in  proper  discipline,  good 
order, and morale; and 
 
e. The member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.   

 
 
Article 12.E.5. of the Personnel Manuals states that members with 180 days or more of 
service  shall  be  entitled  to  an  administrative  discharge  board  (ADB)  proceeding  to  rebut  the 
presumption that he or she is homosexual.   
 
Article 12.E.7.1. of the Personnel Manual states that commanding officers may initiate 
 
fact-finding inquiries into alleged homosexual conduct only after receiving credible information 
that a basis exists for discharge.  This provision further provides that credible information is that 
which,  considering  its  source  and  the  surrounding  circumstances,  supports  a  reasonable  belief 
that there is a basis for discharge.  Such a belief requires a determination based on facts which 
can be articulated, not just a belief or suspicion.  A commanding officer personally or a person 
he or she appoints may conduct a fact-finding inquiry.  
 

Article12.E.7.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  credible  information  about 
homosexual  conduct  does  not  exist  if  the  only  information  known  concerns  as  associational 
activity; e.g., going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with 
known  homosexuals,  or  marching  in  a  gay  rights  rally  in  civilian  clothes.    However,  such 
activity,  in  and  of  itself,  does  not  provide  evidence  of  homosexual  conduct.    Credible 
information does exist, however, if a reliable person states he or she observed or heard a service 
member engaging in homosexual acts or saying he or she is a homosexual or bisexual.  
 

Article12.E.7.3. of the Personnel Manual states that service members will not be asked 
about or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.  However, on 
receiving  credible  information  of  homosexual  conduct,  commanders  or  appointed  inquiry 
officials may ask members if they engaged in such conduct.  These officers first should advise 
the service member of the policy on homosexual conduct and of his or her right under Article 

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: 
 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of title  10  United 

31(b), UCMJ, if applicable.  Should the service member choose not to discuss the matter further, 
the commander should consider other available information. 
 

Article  12.E.8.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  criminal  investigations  will  not  be 
conducted  solely  to  determine  whether  a  service  member  is  heterosexual,  homosexual,  or 
bisexual.  However,  in  cases  which  involve  a  service  member’s  violations  of  this  policy  in 
regards to homosexual or bisexual activity, the commander may  request  that CGIS initiate an 
investigation  to  determine  the  validity  of  allegations  of  homosexual  misconduct  for  use  in 
subsequent administrative or criminal proceedings. 
 

States Code.  The application was timely.   

 
2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pursuant 
to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.31,  denied  the  request  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  case  without  a 
hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 

3.  The applicant’s CO informed the applicant that he had credible evidence from three 
individuals  that  they  had  seen  the  applicant  engage  in  homosexual  acts  and/or  viewed  the 
applicant performing homosexual acts on a video tape, and that under the Personnel Manual such 
statements created a rebuttable presumption that the applicant engaged in homosexual acts.  The 
CO  stated  that  the  credible  statements  formed  a  probable  cause  basis  for  the  applicant’s 
separation  from  the  Coast  Guard.      The  applicant  was  provided  an  opportunity  to  rebut  the 
presumption that he engaged in homosexual acts at an ADB hearing.  He waived the hearing, his 
right to counsel, and his right to make a statement in his behalf.  He was subsequently discharged 
from the Coast Guard. 

 
4.  The applicant has the burden of proving that the Coast Guard committed an error or 
injustice  by  discharging  him  due  to  homosexual  acts  under  Article  12.E.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  He argued that the main witness against him, SN A, retaliated against him with rumors 
about his sexuality because of a monetary dispute between them, or because she believed that the 
applicant and SN B had taken something from her locker, or because he spurned her romantic 
interest.   

 
5.  There is some evidence in the record that there was a disagreement between SN A and 
the applicant with respect to rent owed.  There is also a suggestion that SN A may have been 
romantically interested in the applicant and that she may have believed that the applicant took 
something from her locker for which she wanted revenge.   Even so, SN A’s statement that the 
applicant  engaged  in  homosexual  acts  with  another  crewmember  is  corroborated  by  other 
individuals who stated that they either observed the applicant engage in homosexual acts and/or 
saw him do so on a video tape.  CGIS investigated the matter of the applicant’s homosexual acts 

at the request of the CO.  CGIS obtained statements from SN A and four of her acquaintances.  
SN A stated that the applicant and SN B engaged in oral sex in her presence and that she saw 
them  engage  in  sex  on  a  video  tape.    In  addition  to  SN  A,  two  other  individuals  provided 
evidence that the applicant engaged in homosexual acts.  For instance, one acquaintance stated 
that she viewed video tapes of the applicant and SN B engaging in anal intercourse.  A second 
acquaintance stated that she also viewed a video tape of the applicant and SN B engaging in anal 
intercourse  and  that  SN  B  and  the  applicant  engaged  in  oral  sex  in  her  presence.    SN  A’s 
statement  and  those  of  the  two  other  individuals  are  persuasive  that  the  applicant  probably 
engaged in homosexual acts.  The fact that each statement may not be an exact replica of the 
other  does  not  make  them  inconsistent.  In  addition,  after  reviewing  the  CGIS  summary,  the 
Board finds the SN A’s statement and those of her acquaintances are not inconsistent as each 
attests to having seen the applicant engage in homosexual acts.   

 
6.  The applicant’s suggestion that SN A’s friend and acquaintances conspired with SN A 
against him by writing false statements against him fails for lack of proof and is not persuasive.  
The mere allegation, without more, that SN A’s acquaintances gave false statements to support 
her does not prove the existence of a conspiracy or that their statements are inaccurate.   

 
7.  The applicant argued that there was no physical evidence that he was involved in any 
homosexual acts since the video tapes were never produced.  While the video tapes may not have 
been  produced,  the  facts  in  this  case  were  established  by  another  method,  i.e.  witnesses’ 
statements.    SN  A  and  two  other  witnesses  stated  that  they  viewed  the  applicant  engaging  in 
homosexual acts on video tapes.  In addition, SN A and another witness stated that the applicant 
and  SN  B  engaged  in  oral  sex  in  the  presence  of  each.    Under  Article  12.E.7.1.&2.  of  the 
Personnel Manual, a discharge due to homosexual acts may be based on statements from credible 
individuals that they observed or heard a service member engaging such conduct.    

 
8.  According to the Personnel Manual, credible information of homosexual acts exists if 
a reliable person states he or she observed or heard a service member engaging in homosexual 
acts or saying he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or is married to a person of the same sex.  
CGIS and the CO had an opportunity to interview the witnesses in this case and apparently the 
CO  was  satisfied  as  to  witnesses’  credibility.    The  arguments  and  evidence  offered  by  the 
applicant are insufficient to prove that the witnesses’ statements were not credible and reliable.  
Moreover,  if  the  applicant  believed  that  the  statements  of  the  witnesses  were  untruthful,  he 
should have opted for the ADB hearing and the appointment of military counsel to represent him.   

 
9.    The  applicant  argued  that  it  is  an  injustice  that  his  DD  Form  214,  which  must  be 
shown to employers and institutions of higher learning, lists “homosexual acts” as the narrative 
reason for his discharge.  However, under Article 12.E. of the Personnel Manual “homosexual 
acts’ is a basis for discharge, and as discussed in finding 10. below “homosexual conduct” is the 
correct  narrative  reason  for  such  a  discharge.      While  the  applicant  may  prefer  not  having 
“homosexual acts” or “homosexual conduct” listed as the reason for separation on his DD Form 
214,  he  has  not  established  that  it  is  stigmatizing  or  that  he  has  been  refused  employment  or 
admissions to colleges and universities because of it.   

     

 
10. The applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice in 
discharging him by reason of homosexual conduct due to homosexual acts.  The SPD Handbook 
lists only the RE-4 reenlistment code for a discharge due to homosexual acts.  Moreover, an RE-
1 reenlistment code, as requested by the applicant, would be inconsistent with the basis for his 
separation from the Coast Guard.  
 

11.  The Coast Guard has admitted that the applicant’s DD Form 214 documenting his 
separation from the Coast Guard contains some technical errors.  The Coast Guard recommended 
that the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected by changing the separation authority in block 25 
from COMDTINST M1000.6 Article 12-B-18 (misconduct) to COMDTINST M1000.6 Article 
12.E.5.  (homosexual  conduct)  and  by  changing  the  separation  code  in  block  26  from  JRA  to 
HRA.  The Board agrees that these technical corrections should be made to the applicant’s DD 
214. However, the Board notes that the separation authority in block 25 should be Article 12.E.6. 
as directed by LCDR H  (CGPC-epm-1).  In this regard, COMDTINST M1900.4D (Certificate 
of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty  Form  214  Instructions)  directs  that  the  separation 
authority stated in block 25 shall be as directed by MPC-SEP (now CGPC-epm).   
 

 
  
 
 

12.  The Board would further note that the narrative reason for discharge in block 28 of 
the DD Form 214 is technically incorrect and should be “homosexual conduct.” In this regard, 
COMDTINST  M1900.4D  states  that  that  “[o]nly  the  narrative  reason,  i.e.  UNSUITABILITY, 
MISCONDUCT, etc. is to be entered - - do not enter additional information, i.e. ‘due to frequent 
involvement  with  civil  authorities,  financial  irresponsibility,  etc.’”  Therefore,  in  light  of  the 
instruction  contained  in  COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  the  Board  will  direct  that  “homosexual 
conduct,” be listed as the narrative for separation.   
 
 
corrections shall be made to his DD Form 214 as discussed above.    
 
 
 

13.    Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  relief  is  denied.    However,  the  technical 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

ORDER 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 

 
 
is denied, except that the following technical corrections shall be made to his DD Form 214: 
 

Block  25  shall  be  corrected  to  show  COMDTINST  M1000.6  Article  12.E.6.  as  the      
separation authority; 
 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show HRA as the separation code; and 
 
Block  28  shall  be  corrected  to  show  homosexual  conduct  as  the  narrative  reason  for 

separation. 

 
The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD Form 214 containing the corrections 

All other relief is denied. 

directed by this order.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 

 
 Donald A. Pedersen