DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2007-145 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to 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 June 20, 2007, 
upon  receipt  of  the  completed  application,  and  subsequently  prepared  the  final  decision  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  March  13,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  RE-4  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment) 
reenlistment code to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment) so that he can reenlist in the Army National 
Guard.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that he did not discover the alleged error until April 3, 2007.  He 
stated that even if the Board finds his application to be untimely, it should waive the three-year 
statute of limitations in the interest of justice so that he can join the Army National Guard. 
 
 
Prior to joining the Coast Guard, the applicant had served from October 7, 1980 through 
October 6, 1983 on active duty in the Army.  He was released from the Army into the Reserve 
with  an  RE-1  reenlistment  code.    Later  on  December  4,  1984,  he  joined  the Army  National 
Guard where he served until October 6, 1986.    

 

  

SUMMARY OF RECORD 

 
  
On March 3, 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years. On June 27, 
1987, the applicant requested to be discharged from the Coast Guard for the convenience of the 
government.  In his request, he claimed that his recruiter had misled him into believing that he 
would have a rate within one year.  The applicant claimed that after he enlisted, he learned that 
he would be required to attend an “A” school or strike (perform on-the-job training) to receive a 

rate.  The applicant stated that the wait for an “A” school was approximately 18 months and that 
with  his  low  test  scores  he  only  qualified  for  one  “A”  school  without  a  waiver  and  for  three 
others  with  a  waiver.    He  stated  that  none  of  the  rates  for  which  he  was  potentially  eligible 
interested him.  He stated that he asked the recruiter about his test scores before enlisting, but 
was told to wait until he got to recruit training to get his scores.    
 
 
In  his  request  for  a  convenience  of  the  government  discharge,  the  applicant  also 
complained about the length of time it took for his family to receive government housing as well 
as  the  poor  condition  of  the  premises  when  it  was  delivered  to  him.    He  also  stated  that  he 
suffered from motion sickness when exposed to diesel fumes. 
 
 
On August 31, 1987, the Commandant disapproved the applicant’s request for a discharge 
by reason of convenience of the government.  He stated that there were no provisions in effect 
under which the applicant was eligible for an early release from active duty. 
 
 
October 23, 1987, a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).   
 

The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  brought  four  cans  of  beer  aboard  a  cutter  on 

On October 28, 1987, the applicant missed ship’s movement by failing to return to the 

cutter upon the expiration of his liberty, a violation of Article 87 of the UCMJ. 

 
The record also indicates that the applicant brought two bottles of wine aboard the cutter 

on October 30, 1987, a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ.   
 

On  November  2,  1987,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  punished  him  at 
captain’s mast for the two orders violations and for missing ship’s movement.  The CO punished 
the applicant by imposing 45 days of restriction and 45 days of extra duty, reducing him to pay 
grade E-1, and taking $350 per month for two months in forfeitures.   

 
On  November  20,  1987,  the  CO  informed  the  applicant  that  he  had  initiated  action  to 
discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  of  his  involvement  in  two  alcohol 
incidents.  One such incident occurred on October 23, 1987 and the other on October 30, 1987.  
The  CO  advised  the  applicant  that  he  could  object  to  the  proposed  discharge,  that  he  could 
submit a statement in his own behalf, and that he could consult with counsel.   

 
On  November  21,  1987,  the  applicant  acknowledged  notification  of  the  proposed 
discharge,  expressed  a  desire  not  to  submit  a  statement,  and  waived  his  right  to  consult  with 
counsel.   
 

On  November  25,  1987,  an  administrative  remarks  entry  (page  7)  was  placed  into  the 
applicant’s record documenting his violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ on October 23, 1987, by 
bringing  four  cans  of  beer  aboard  the  cutter.    The  page  7  also  documented  this  event  as  the 
applicant’s first alcohol incident.  The applicant acknowledged the entry with his signature. 
 

On  November  25,  2007,  a  second  page  7  was  placed  into  the  applicant’s  record 
documenting  his  violation  of Article  92  of  the  UCMJ  on  October  30,  1987  by  bringing  wine 

aboard the cutter.  The entry documented this event as the applicant’s second alcohol incident.  
The applicant acknowledged this entry with his signature.  
 

On January 13, 1988, the Commandant approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast 

Guard by reason of unsuitability due to alcohol abuse.   

 
The applicant was discharged honorably on February 17, 1988 with an RE-4 reenlistment 
code.    The  same  day,  the  applicant  signed  a  page  7  entry  acknowledging  his  unsuitability 
discharge and his RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 6, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  Attached to the 
advisory opinion as Enclosure (1) was a memorandum from the Commander, Coast Guard Per-
sonnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  the  JAG  asked  the  Board  to  accept  as  the  Coast  Guard’s 
advisory opinion.  CGPC recommended that relief be denied and offered the following:   
 

1.  The applicant’s request is not timely, and he has not provided any justification 
for the delay in filing. 
 
2.  I find that the applicant’s discharge was in accordance with Coast Guard policy 
for  processing  personnel  for  unsuitability  .  .  .    The  applicant  had  two  separate 
alcohol  incidents  for  which  he  received  punishment  at  [CO’s]  non-judicial 
punishment on November 2, 1987 . . .  The applicant was advised of the discharge 
recommendation and he did not object to discharge and acknowledged that he was 
being  recommended  for  a  general  discharge    .  .  .    The  applicant  was  properly 
discharged  with  a  RE-4  reenlistment  code  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment).    The 
only applicable code for discharges for unsuitability due to alcohol abuse is RE-4.  
[Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook] 
 
3.  A complete review of the applicant’s record reveals that shortly after enlisting 
in  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  indicated  a  reluctance  to  perform  military 
service and he requested a discharge for the convenience of the government.  The 
applicant’s request was denied.  The applicant contended misrepresentation by the 
recruiter  when  he  requested  discharge.    However  there  is  no  substance  to  such 
claim  that  would  mitigate  or  negate  the  actions  that  led  to  the  applicant’s 
discharge.  Twice he brought alcohol onboard a Coast Guard vessel . . .  
 
4.    The  record  reveals  that  the  Coast  Guard  afforded  the  applicant  with  the 
opportunity to conform to military service, and he was provided with counseling 
and  mental  health  services.    The  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  an  error  or 
injustice  with  the  processing  of  his  discharge  and  the  assignment  of  RE-4 
reenlistment code is consistent with policy.    
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 14, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a  copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard and allotted him thirty days to submit a reply.   The BCMR did not receive a response 
from the Applicant.   
 

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. 

10 of the United States Code.   

 
2.  The application was  not timely.  An  application for correction of a  military record 
 
must be submitted within three years after the applicant discovered or should have discovered the 
alleged error or injustice.  See 33 CFR 52.22.   This application was submitted approximately 
sixteen years beyond the statute of limitations.   The applicant claimed that he did not discover 
the alleged error until April 3, 2007.  However, the applicant knew in 1988 that he was being 
discharged by reason of unsuitability due to alcohol abuse with an RE-4 reenlistment code.  In 
this regard, his DD form 214, which he signed, contains the RE-4 reenlistment code.  He also 
acknowledged the RE-4 reenlistment code by his signature on a page 7 dated February 17, 1988.  
Therefore,  the  applicant  knew  or  should  have  known  of  the  alleged  error  at  the  time  of  his 
discharge from the Coast Guard.  
 
3.  The applicant argued that even if his application fails to meet the statute of limitations, 
 
the Board should waive the statute and consider his application so that he could join the Army 
National Guard. The Board notes that, except for the applicant’s statement, there is no evidence 
in  the  record  that  the  applicant  is  eligible  for  enlistment  in  the  National  Guard  or  that  the 
National Guard would consider enlisting him, even if he could prove an error with respect to his 
reenlistment code.  Therefore, the Board is not persuaded to excuse the applicant’s failure to file 
a timely application based solely on his statement that he now wishes to join the National Guard.    
 

4.   Even though the application is untimely, the Board may still consider the application 
on the merits, if it finds 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 in assessing 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."   

 
 
5.  Based  on  a  review  of  the  merits,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  is  not  likely  to 
prevail on his claim for a change in his reenlistment code.  The applicant was advised of the 
reason  for his discharge and provided the opportunity to make  a statement as required by the 
Personnel Manual.  The applicant did not object to the discharge and waived his right to make a 
statement  in  his  own  behalf  and  his  right  to  consult  with  counsel.    In  addition,  the  Board  is 
satisfied that the basis for the applicant’s discharge, alcohol abuse, was in accordance with the 
Personnel  Manual.    Article  12.B.16.b.(5)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  then  in  effect  stated  that 

involvement  in  two  or  more  alcohol  incidents  is  a  basis  for  an  unsuitability  discharge  due  to 
alcohol  abuse.    The  applicant  had  two  such  incidents:  one  on  October  23,  1987  and  one  on 
October 30, 1987.  

 
5.  In addition, the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code for the applicant’s discharge 
by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  alcohol  abuse  was  appropriate  and  in  accordance  with 
COMDTINST M1900.4B.  The pertinent instruction does not contain the option of awarding an 
RE-1 reenlistment code for an unsuitability discharge due to alcohol abuse.  Further, the RE-4 
reenlistment  code  is  supported  by  the  applicant’s  two  alcohol  incidents  and  missing  ship’s 
movement for which he received NJP. 
 

6.  Therefore the Board finds that due to the length of the delay, the lack of a persuasive 
reason for not filing his application sooner, and the lack of probable success on the merits of his 
claim,  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  in  this  case.    The 
application should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   

 
7.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

  
.    
 

 
 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

military record is denied.