DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-177 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXX-XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   

 

 
 

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 August 15, 2007, upon 
receipt of the applicant's completed application, and subsequently prepared the final decision for 
the Board, as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  30,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  1988  under 
honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.  The applicant was discharged from 
the  Coast  Guard  with  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  (known  as  a  general 
discharge)  by  reason  of  misconduct.  He  was  assigned  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  to  enlist) 
reenlistment  code  and  an  HKA  (involuntary  discharge  due  to  a  pattern  of  misconduct  of  a 
discreditable nature with military authorities) separation code.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that his general discharge was not equitable because it was based 
on one isolated incident during his 17 months of service. In support of his BCMR application, 
the applicant submitted a copy of his application to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) that was 
returned  to  him  because  it  exceeded  the  DRB’s  15-year  statute  of  limitations.      In  his  DRB 
application,  he  stated  that  the  misconduct  for  which  he  was  discharged  resulted  from  his 
dissatisfaction  with  an  unexpected  change  in  his  duty  assignment  that  kept  him  in  Kodiak, 
Alaska.    The  applicant  did  not  make  a  specific  request  for  a  change  in  his  separation  or 
reenlistment codes.   
 
 
April 18, 1988.   
 
 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on November 17, 1986, and was discharged on 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 2, 2008, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General  (JAG),  adopting  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC).  
 

CGPC noted that the application was not filed with the BCMR within its 3-year statute of 
limitations.  The JAG provided a discussion of the merits and a recommendation for upgrading 
the applicant’s discharge if the Board decided that it would be in the interest of justice to waive 
the statute of limitations.     
 
 
 

CGPC noted the following pertinent events in the applicant’s service record. 

•  On  September  12,  1987,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  captain’s  mast  (non-judicial 
punishment  (NJP))  for  reporting  to  duty  35  minutes  late.    The  applicant’s  punishment 
included 21 days of restriction and a reduction to pay grade E-1, which was suspended 
for 4 months.  CGPC further noted that the applicant had been late for duty three other 
times. 

 

 

 

 

 

•  On  December  6,  1987,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  captain’s  mast  for  dishonorable 
failure to pay a debt in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ)  and  for  making  a  false  official  statement,  a  violation  of  Article  107  of  the 
UCMJ.    His  punishment  was  30  days  of  extra  duties,  30  days  of  restriction,  and  the 
vacation of the suspended reduction in rate from the earlier mast.   

•  On January 7, 1988, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) advised him that the CO 
was recommending that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge by reason of 
misconduct  as  a  result  of  the  two  NJPs.    The  applicant  acknowledged  the  proposed 
discharge, did not object to it, did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf, and 
did not desire to seek legal counsel.      

•  On January 27, 1988, the applicant’s CO recommended that the Commandant discharge 
the applicant from the Coast Guard due to misconduct.  The CO stated that the applicant 
“has been a continual  administrative burden since reporting aboard [the cutter], due to 
both his indebtedness problems . . . and his misconduct.”  In addition the CO stated that 
the applicant had repeatedly lied to his supervisors about his indebtedness problems and 
that  “his  value  to this  unit  and  potential  for  successful  completion  of  his  enlistment is 
extremely poor.” 

•  On February 22, 1988, the applicant waived his right to a probationary period that would 

have allowed him an opportunity to correct his deficiencies. 

•  On  April  18,  1988,  the  applicant  was  discharged  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.18  of  the 
Personnel  Manual  with  a  general  discharge,  a  KHA  separation  code,  and  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code.  At the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 1  year, 5 
months, and 2 days of active service.   

 
 
CGPC  stated  that  at  the  time  the  applicant  did  not  object  to  the  discharge;  nor  did  he 
allege that he was improperly discharged in his BCMR application.  Instead, according to CGPC, 
the applicant alleged that the general discharge was inconsistent with his performance.  CGPC 
further stated the following: 
 

A review of the applicant’s entire service record indicates that his performance 
evaluations for his enlistment meet the minimum factor average for awarding an 
honorable discharge pursuant to [the Personnel Manual].  Additionally, given the 
nature of the incidents relating to his discharge, they do not represent incidents 
that would normally be characterized [by] a general discharge.   Therefore, in the 
interest of justice, if the BCMR concurs, the Coast Guard recommends that the 
applicant’s  record  be  corrected  to  reflect  that  he  was  awarded  an  honorable 
discharge vice [a discharge] under honorable conditions.  He should be issued a 
new DD-214 reflecting this change along with an honorable discharge certificate.   
 
The  reenlistment  code,  narrative  reason  for  separation  and  SPD  code  are 
consistent with the applicant’s record and therefore should not be changed.   

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
 
 
On January 8, 2008, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant for any 
response that he desired to make.  The BCMR did not receive a reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
submissions and military record, submission of the Coast Guard, and applicable law: 
 

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

States Code.   
 
 
2. The application was not timely.  The applicant had been discharged for approximately 
twenty years before he filed this application with the Board.  To be timely, an application for 
correction of  a military  record must be submitted within three  years  after the alleged error or 
injustice was or should have been discovered.  See 33 CFR 52.22.   
 

3.    The  applicant  did  not  provide  the  date  on  which  he  discovered  the  alleged  error.  
However, he should have discovered it on the date of his discharge in 1988 as the character of 
service is clearly written on his DD Form 214.   He did not explain why he could not have filed 
his application with the Board within three years after his discharge from the Coast Guard.  

 
4.  However, 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.  A review the merits indicates that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of 
limitations, particularly since the Coast Guard admitted that an injustice exists in the applicant’s 
record  with  respect  to  the  character  of  his  discharge.    In  this  regard,  CGPC  noted  that  the 
applicant meets the requirements for an honorable discharge by having at least  a 2.5 average 
mark  in  each  performance  factor  over  the  course  of  his  enlistment.    Pursuant  to  Article 
12.B.2.f.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  after  June  30,  1983,  a  member  must  have  a  minimum 
characteristic average of 2.5 in each factor over the period of his enlistment to be eligible for an 
honorable discharge.  In addition, according to Article 12.B.2.f.1.(7) of the Personnel Manual, 
misconduct does not disqualify the applicant from receipt of an honorable discharge. Therefore, 
CGPC  recommended  upgrading  the  applicant’s  general  discharge  to  an  honorable  discharge.    
The Board  agrees with the recommendation of the Coast Guard and finds that the applicant’s 
average marks in each performance factor made him eligible for an honorable discharge.  The 
Board further finds that it would be an injustice not to waive the statute of limitations and correct 
his record in this regard.   
 
 
7.  In light of the fact that the applicant had two captain’s masts within approximately a 
four-month period, that his CO stated that he was an administrative burden to the unit, and that 
the  applicant  waived  his  right  to  a  probationary  period  that  would  have  allowed  him  an 
opportunity  to  correct  his  deficiencies,  the  Board  is  satisfied  that  his  discharge  by  reason  of 
misconduct was proper and appropriate.  See Article 12.B.18.c. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
8.  The applicant’s separation and RE-4 reenlistment codes are supported by the record 
and  authorized  by  regulation.    Pursuant  to  the  Separation  Designator  Code  (SPD)  Handbook, 
only an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized for the KHA separation code. The applicant has not 
provided the board with any evidence to prove that his separation and reenlistment codes are in 
error.   
 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant should have his general discharge upgraded to an honorable 
discharge.  Further, in accordance with the advisory opinion, he should be issued an honorable 
discharge certificate.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 
 

 

ORDER 

 
 

No other relief is granted. 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that he received an honorable 
discharge.   The Coast Guard shall issue the  applicant a new DD 214 reflecting his honorable 
discharge, as well as an honorable discharge certificate.  The following notation shall be made in 
Block 18 of the DD 214:  “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley