DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-165 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 case on July 27, 2007, upon receipt of 
the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the 
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  April  10,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 24, 2001, and was honorably dis-
charged on March 15, 2002, due to “alcohol rehabilitation failure,” asked the Board to upgrade 
his reenlistment code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) so that he can enlist in the Armed Forces 
again.    The  applicant  stated  that  although  he  knew  his  RE-4  code  would  prevent  him  from 
reenlisting when he was discharged, it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his 
application  because  he  wants  to  live  up  to  the  commitment  he  made  when  he  enlisted  in  the 
Coast Guard. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he was discharged only because, when asked at mast what pun-
ishment he thought he should receive, he stated that he should be separated.  After he said this 
during the mast, his commanding officer (CO) said, “If he doesn’t want to stay, then we’re not 
going to keep him.”  However, the applicant now regrets his decision.  In support of his allega-
tions, the applicant submitted a copy of a decision by the Discharge Review Board (DRB), which 
shows that although the DRB recommended that his RE code be upgraded to RE-3G, the Vice 
Commandant disapproved that recommendation on March 20, 2007. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
completed boot camp and was assigned to a high endurance cutter. 

On July 24, 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard at the age of 21 years.  He 

On November 5, 2001, the applicant missed his ship’s movement from Tijuana, Mexico, 

 
 
as a result of being intoxicated.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) for three days.   
 
 
and a strong smell of alcohol.  He was found not fit for duty for the day due to his intoxication. 
 

On November 29, 2001, the applicant arrived at his duty station late with slurred speech 

On December 3, 2001, the executive officer of the cutter prepared two forms CG-3307 
(“Page 7s”) to document the events of November 5, 2001, and November 29, 2001, as the appli-
cant’s first and second alcohol incidents.  The first Page 7 states that the applicant was “coun-
seled on the policies concerning alcohol use/abuse and the serious nature of this incident” and 
that he would be referred for alcohol screening.    It also advises the applicant that any further 
alcohol incident may result in his separation pursuant to Article 20 of the Personnel Manual.  The 
second  Page  7  states  that,  because  of  his  second  alcohol  incident,  he  might  be  separated  for 
continued alcohol abuse pursuant to Article 20 of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant acknowl-
edged these Page 7s by signature on December 13, 2001. 

 
On January 10, 2002, the XO entered a third Page 7 in the applicant’s record to document 
his third alcohol incident.  It states that on December 20, 2001, the applicant was apprehended by 
Naval Station San Diego security for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.  The appli-
cant was given two breathalyzer tests.  The first showed a BAC of 0.11% and the second showed 
a BAC of 0.09%.  In addition, the applicant failed all field sobriety tests administered.  The Page 
7 further notes that the applicant had been allowed to leave work early that day because he said 
he needed to retrieve his vehicle from Tijuana, where it had been found after being stolen a few 
weeks earlier.  The Page 7 states that because of the third alcohol incident, “you will be proc-
essed for separation.”  The applicant acknowledged the Page 7 by signature the same day. 
 

 
3.    I  recognize  that  these  three  incidents  occurred  very  close  together  and  that  [the  applicant’s] 
behavior is certainly indicative of what could be considered as “youthful indiscretions.”  I assure 
you  that  I  have  considered  the  Commandant’s  “Second  Chance”  program  in  this  case  and  have 

On January 15, 2002, the applicant was taken to captain’s mast and awarded non-judicial 
punishment (NJP) for the DUI.  He also received a performance evaluation with very low marks, 
an unsatisfactory conduct mark, and a mark of “not recommended” for advancement.  A Page 7 
in  his  record  states  that  he  lacked  leadership  skills  and  had  been  counseled  formally  and 
informally about his poor military bearing, tardiness, lack of sobriety, and poor work ethic. 

 
On January 24, 2002, the CO of the cutter informed the applicant that he had initiated 
action to discharge the  applicant because of his three documented alcohol incidents.  The CO 
advised the applicant that he had a right to submit a statement in rebuttal to the CO’s recom-
mendation.    The  applicant  acknowledged  the  CO’s  notification,  waived  his  right  to  submit  a 
statement, and indicated that he did not object to being discharged. 

 
On January 25, 2002, the CO submitted his recommendation that the applicant be honora-
bly discharged for unsuitability because of his three alcohol incidents.  The CO wrote the follow-
ing in his recommendation: 

determined  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  best  interest  of  the  Coast  Guard  or  the  member  in  this 
instance.  

a.  [The applicant] was briefed several times upon check-in on the dangers and possible 
results of alcohol abuse.  He ignored my warnings and visited Tijuana on two separate occasions, 
both resulting in alcohol incidents.  He demonstrated little remorse after the first two incidents and 
basically “gave up” on giving the Coast Guard a chance after his third incident. 

b.    [The  applicant]  has  stated  that  he  does  not  wish  to  remain  in  the  Coast  Guard  and 
every  single  member  in  his  chain  of  command  recommended  his  immediate  administrative  dis-
charge.  He stated at his Captain’s Mast that he believes he cannot succeed in a structured military 
environment and that he would be better off going home and working for his father’s construction 
company. 
 
On  February  4,  2002,  the  Commander  of  the  Pacific Area  Maintenance  and  Logistics 
Command  forwarded  the  CO’s  recommendation  to  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) stating that the “discharge package for [the applicant] has been routed for consideration 
of a ‘Second Chance Waiver.’  [He] has not been granted a waiver and the package is forwarded 
for processing.” 

 
On February 8, 2002, CGPC ordered that the applicant be discharged by reason of unsuit-
ability pursuant to Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual, with separation code JPD and the 
corresponding  narrative  reason  for  separation  “found  in  the  Separation  Program  Designator 
Handbook.” 

 
On March 15, 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard with a 
JPD  separation  code,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and  “Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure”  as  his 
narrative reason for separation.  The original DD 214 also cites Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel 
Manual as the separation authority. 
 

   
On February 28, 2007, the DRB issued a decision recommending several corrections to 

the applicant’s DD 214 because, although it found that the discharge was equitable, it also 
 

felt that the discharge was not carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy in that the appli-
cant’s record did not have any documentation showing the applicant failed or refused alcohol reha-
bilitation treatment or medical screening results.  The applicant received three documented alcohol 
incidents within a two-month period.  The Board recommends changing the applicant’s separation 
code to JFV vice JPD, narrative reason to Condition, Not a Disability vice Alcohol Rehabilitation 
Failure, reenlistment code to RE-3G vice RE-4, and separation authorization to Persman Art. 12-
B-12 vice 12-B-16.  The applicant will need to show a recruiter how the circumstances that led to 
his separation have been resolved. 

 

The table below shows the DRB’s recommendations, dated February 28, 2007, and the 

Original Entry in Block 

action taken by the Vice Commandant on March 20, 2007.   
 
DD 214 Block 
Separation Authority  Article 12.B.16. 
Separation Code 
Reenlistment Code 
Narrative Reason 
 

JPD 
RE-4 
Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure 

DRB Recommendation 
Article 12.B.12. 
JFV 
RE-3G 
Condition, Not a Disability  Unsuitability 

Commandant Decision 
Approved 
JNC 
Disapproved—no change 

 
On March 30, 2007, the Coast Guard issued the applicant a DD 215, which is the correc-
tion form for a DD 214, showing that his separation code is JNC and his narrative reason for 
separation is “Unsuitability.” 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 18, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  limited  partial  relief  by 
ordering  the  Coast  Guard  to  issue  the  applicant  a  new  DD  214  with  the  corrections  currently 
shown on the DD 215 incorporated therein, so that the derogatory information corrected by the 
Commandant will not appear on his DD 214.   
 

The JAG noted that “[p]ursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.64, this case presents issues of signifi-
cant Coast Guard policy regarding good order and discipline as it relates to character of service, 
narrative reasons for discharge, and reenlistment eligibility codes.”  However, the JAG did not 
describe how or why the request for an upgraded RE code in this case challenges a significant 
issue of Coast Guard policy any more than any other request for an upgraded RE code.1 
 
 
Regarding the merits of the applicant’s request for a better RE code, the JAG adopted the 
findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC.  CGPC stated 
that after his three alcohol incidents, the applicant was considered for a “second chance waiver,” 
but the Commander of the Pacific Area Maintenance and Logistics Command disapproved such 
a waiver on February 4, 2002.  CGPC stated that given the applicant’s poor performance with 
multiple alcohol incidents during his 7 months and 19 days on active duty, he “is not suitable for 
military service and the assignment of RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment) is equitable and in 
accordance with Service policy.”  CGPC noted that the assignment of the RE-4 code is required 
by regulation for anyone discharged with either a JPD or a JNC separation code.  CGPC further 
noted that the applicant has submitted no new evidence nor “addressed any resolution regarding 
the conditions that led to his discharge or post discharge alcohol rehabilitation.  The clear pattern 
of alcohol abuse and the significant nature of the incidents that led to his discharge represent a 
significant risk and neither the SPD code nor the reentry code should be changed.” 
 

CGPC  noted,  however,  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  applicant  ever 
underwent  alcohol  rehabilitative  counseling  or  treatment.    Therefore,  although  the  separation 
code, narrative reason for separation, and separation authority shown on the DD 214 have techni-
cally been corrected by the Commandant with a DD 215, CGPC recommended that the Board 
order the Coast Guard to re-issue the applicant a DD 214 with the corrected information so that 
the original, derogatory information need not be seen by future potential employers. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  January  21,  2008,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard.  He wrote that he disagreed with the recommendation not to upgrade his RE code 
                                                 
1  Under  33  C.F.R.  §  52.64,  the  Board  may  take  final  action  on  any  application  to  change  a  reenlistment  code 
“[u]nless the Coast Guard, in submitting its views pursuant to § 52.42(b), identifies and describes a significant issue 
of Coast Guard policy challenged in the application.” 

but does not “have any other information or reason apart from what I have already submitted to 
your office.  I just would like a second chance to make things right.  I will say that everything I 
did looks bad on paper and I understand the [Coast Guard’s] reservations.  That being said, the 
XO of the [cutter] said at my captain’s mast ‘we were going to keep you’ after I requested that 
my punishment should be separation from the Coast Guard.  After the XO said that, the CO said 
‘if he doesn’t want to stay, we’re not going to keep him.’” 
  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PRIOR CASES 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article 20 of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2002 contains the regulations regarding 
alcohol  abuse  by  Coast  Guard  members.    Article  20.B.2.d.  defines  an  “alcohol  incident”  as 
“[a]ny behavior in which the use or abuse of alcohol is determined to be a significant or causa-
tive factor and which results in the member’s loss of ability to perform assigned duties, brings 
discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ) or federal, state, or local laws.  The member need not be found guilty at court martial, in 
a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the behavior to be considered 
an alcohol incident.”   
 

Article 20.B.2.g.1. states that following a first alcohol incident, the member is counseled 
about the Coast Guard’s alcohol policies and the counseling is documented on a Page 7 in the 
member’s record.  In addition, under Article 20.B.2.e., “[a]ny member who has been involved in 
alcohol incidents or otherwise shown signs of alcohol abuse shall be screened in accordance with 
the Alcohol Abuse Treatment and Prevention Program . . . .  The results of this alcohol screening 
shall be recorded and acknowledged on a [Page 7].”  This second Page 7 must also include a 
“statement of recommended treatment, if any.” 
 
 
Article 20.A.2.e. states that “alcohol screening” is an “evaluation by a physician, clinical 
psychologist,  or  a  DoD  or  civilian  equivalent  CAAC  counselor  to  determine  the  nature  and 
extent of alcohol abuse.”  According to Article 20.B.3.b., following screening, “[c]ommanding 
officers  shall  seek  appropriate  treatment  for  members  who  have  abused  alcohol  or  been  diag-
nosed as alcohol dependent. . . . Members shall be treated for alcohol abuse or dependency as 
prescribed by competent medical authority.  However, … their scheduled separation or release to 
inactive duty for any reason shall not be delayed for the sole purpose of completing alcohol treat-
ment.” 
 
 
According to Article 20.B.2.h.2., “[e]nlisted members involved in a second alcohol inci-
dent will normally be processed for separation in accordance with Article 12.B.16.”  However, in 
“cases involving enlisted members whose commanding officer feels that an exceptional situation 
warrants  consideration  for  retention,  a  letter  request  for  retention  and  treatment,  including  the 
medical screening results, treatment plan, and commanding officer's recommendation concerning 
treatment shall be forwarded via the chain of command to Commander (CGPC-epm) who shall 
consult with Commandant (G-WKH) and direct the appropriate action regarding retention.  The 
command recommendation for retention will be submitted as a cover letter to the required dis-
charge package.” 

JPD 

Alcohol 
Rehabilitation 
Failure 

RE-4 

12-B-16 

JFV 

Condition, Not a 
Disability 

JNC 

Unacceptable 
Conduct 

12-B-12 

RE-3G 
RE-3X 
RE-4 

RE-4 

12-B-16 

Involuntary discharge … when a 
member failed through inability or 
refusal to participate in, cooperate in, 
or successfully complete a treatment 
program for alcohol rehabilitation. 
Involuntary discharge … when a 
condition, not a physical disability, 
interferes with the performance of duty 
(enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, 
obesity, fear of flying, et al.). 
Involuntary discharge … when 
member performs acts of unacceptable 
conduct (i.e., moral and/or professional 
dereliction) not otherwise listed. 

Article  12.B.16.  authorizes  the  administrative  discharge  of  members  for  alcohol  abuse 

Article 20.B.2.i. states that “[e]nlisted members involved in a third alcohol incident shall 

 
 
be processed for separation from the Service.” 
 
 
pursuant to Article 20.B.2.   
 
SPD Handbook 
 
 
narrative reasons, and reenlistment codes, which might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 
SPD Code  Narrative Reason  RE Code  Authority  Explanation 

The Separation Program Designator Handbook permits the use of the following codes, 

 
BCMR Docket No. 1998-047 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1998-047, the applicant was discharged by reason of alcohol reha-
bilitation failure following two alcohol incidents.  After the first, an arrest for driving under the 
influence in July 1996, his screening was delayed due to his cutter’s underway schedule until 
November 1996.  In November, he was finally screened and in December, his command formally 
documented  his  first  alcohol  incident  and  ordered  him  to  undergo  Level  I  rehabilitative  treat-
ment.  However, before he began treatment, on January 1, 1997, he was arrested for assault com-
mitted  while  under  the  influence  of  alcohol.    Therefore,  his  command  recommended  his  dis-
charge  and  referred  him  to  Level  II  treatment.    He  was  discharged  on April  16,  1997,  before 
completing the treatment program, with a JPD separation code and “alcohol rehabilitation fail-
ure” as his narrative reason for separation. 
 
 
In his advisory opinion for Docket No. 1998-047, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard 
recommended  that  the  Board  change  the  applicant’s  separation  code  to  JNC  and  his  narrative 
reason for separation to “unacceptable conduct.”  The Board found that the narrative reason for 
separation “alcohol rehabilitation failure” was inaccurate because the applicant’s screening and 
treatment were delayed by the Coast Guard and his treatment was not completed by the time he 
was discharged.  Therefore, the Board granted the relief recommended by the Chief Counsel and 
did not change the applicant’s reenlistment code, which was RE-4. 

 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  
Because the applicant submitted his application within three years of the decision of the DRB, 
his  application  is  considered  timely  in  accordance  with  the  decision  in  Ortiz  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994). 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his RE code.  He alleged that he was 
only discharged because he told his CO at mast on January 15, 2002, that he wanted to be dis-
charged.    However,  under  Article  20.B.2.i.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  “[e]nlisted  members 
involved in a third alcohol incident shall be processed for separation from the Service.”  There-
fore, while the CO could have asked CGPC to retain the applicant following his first two alcohol 
incidents, in accordance with Article 20.B.2.h.2., the applicant’s third alcohol incident mandated 
his  discharge  under  the  regulations  whether  or  not  his  CO  would  have  agreed  to  retain  him.  
Moreover, prior to the mast, on January 10, 2002, the XO documented the applicant’s third alco-
hol incident on a Page 7, which also notified the applicant that because of the third incident he 
would be processed for discharge. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  DRB  recommended  that  several  blocks  on  the  applicant’s  DD  214  be  cor-
rected because he was never afforded rehabilitative treatment since his three alcohol incidents 
occurred so close together in time.  As a result of the Vice Commandant’s action on the DRB’s 
recommendation,  the  applicant  now  has  a  JNC  separation  code  for  unacceptable  conduct, 
“Unsuitability” as his narrative reason for separation, and an RE-4 reenlistment code.  The appli-
cant argued that the Vice Commandant’s decision not to upgrade his reenlistment code to RE-3G 
in accordance with the DRB’s recommendation is unjust.  However, the RE-3G code and narra-
tive reason “Condition, Not a Disability” that the DRB favored are for members discharged not 
for alcohol abuse but for conditions such as enuresis (incontinence), obesity, and seasickness. 

Under the Separation Program Designator Handbook, an RE-4 is the only reenlist-
ment code authorized for anyone discharged for alcohol or drug abuse.  The record indicates that 
the applicant was properly discharged because of alcohol abuse in accordance with the regula-
tions in the Personnel Manual, and he has submitted nothing to prove to this Board that he no 
longer  abuses  alcohol.    The  Board  finds  no  basis  in  the  record  for  upgrading  the  applicant’s 
reenlistment code.  The  applicant has not proved by a preponderance of  the evidence that his  
RE-4 code is erroneous or unjust.2 

As the applicant never failed alcohol rehabilitation treatment while on active duty, 
his original DD 214 is unduly derogatory and the corrections made on the DD 215 do not hide 
the  error  since  the  applicant  must  show  his  DD  214  and  DD  215  to  all  potential  employers.  

                                                 
2  See  Reale  v.  United  States,  208  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011  (1976)  (holding  that  for  purposes  of  the  BCMRs  under  
10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice”). 

Therefore, the Board agrees that the Coast Guard should issue him a new DD 214 incorporating 
all of the changes ordered by the Vice Commandant on March 20, 2007. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied, but the Coast Guard should 

issue the applicant a new DD 214 to replace his old DD 214 and the DD 215. 

 
6. 

 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 
his  military  record  is  denied,  except  that  the  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  him  a  new  DD  214 
incorporating the corrections made on his DD 215 dated March 30, 2007, so that the new DD 
214 will show separation code JNC in block 26 (instead of JPD) and the word “Unsuitability” in 
block 28 (instead of “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure”).  In addition, the following notation shall 
be made in block 18 of the new DD 214:  “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall