DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-211 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
XXX XXXXXXXX   

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 November 
September  21,  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  June  12,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  discharge  under 
other  than  honorable  conditions  to  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  (general 
discharge).   
 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 13, 1999, and was discharged on July 
19, 2004, under other than honorable  conditions by reason of misconduct due to involvement 
with  drugs.    He  was  assigned  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  to  reenlist)  reenlistment  code  and  a  JKK 
(misconduct/drug abuse) separation code.  
 

 

 
 

 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  been  discharged  with  a  general  discharge 
because  Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a  member  involved  in  a  drug 
incident will be processed for separation with no higher than a general discharge.  He argued that 
the drug incident in which he was involved occurred away from the cutter and did not disgrace 
the Coast Guard.   He requested a “fair discharge based upon [his] record of service.”   
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 13, 1999.  At that time, he signed an 

administrative remarks (page 7) entry, which advised him of the following: 

 

I have been advised that the illegal use or possession of drugs constitutes a serious 
breach  of  discipline  [,]  which  will  not  be  tolerated.    Also,  illegal  drug  use  or 
possession is counter to esprit de corps & mission performance and jeopardizes 
safety.  No member will use, possess, or distribute illegal drugs, drug parapherna-
lia or hemp oil products.  I also understand that upon reporting to recruit training, 
I will be tested by urinalysis for the presence of illegal drugs.  If my urine test 
detects the presence of illegal drugs I may be subject to discharge and receive a 
general discharge.  
 
 
 
A February 2, 2004 administrative remarks page (page 7) indicates that the applicant was 
in the custody of the Baltimore, Maryland police on suspicion of conspiracy to import cocaine.   
 
 
On  February  10,  2004,  the  applicant  was  indicted  by  a  grand  jury  in  the  U.S.  District 
Court  for  the  District  of  Maryland  for  conspiracy  to  import  cocaine,  importation  of  cocaine, 
possession of a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and aiding and abetting.   
 
 
On April 30, 2004, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant that 
he had initiated action to discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard due to a drug incident.1  
The  CO  advised  the  applicant  that  he  could  receive  a  discharge  under  other  than  honorable 
conditions  and  the  decision  whether  he  would  receive  a  general  or  other  than  honorable 
discharge rested with the Commandant.  The applicant was further advised that a discharge under 
other  than  honorable  conditions  could  only  be  awarded  if  an  administrative  separation  board 
recommended such a characterization.  The applicant was advised that he could disagree with the 
recommended discharge; that he could submit a statement in his own behalf; that he could elect 
to have his case heard by an administration separation board, with the assistance of a military 
lawyer; and that he could consult with a military lawyer prior to deciding whether to request an 
administration separation board.    
 
 
On April 30, 2004, the applicant signed a statement in which he acknowledged that he 
had read and understood the discharge notification; that he understood that anything less than an 
honorable discharge could deprive him of some or all Department of Veterans’ Affairs benefits; 
and that he wanted to consult with an attorney regarding his decision to request an administrative 
separation board.   
 

On June 7, 2004, the applicant signed a statement affirming that he had consulted with a 
military lawyer on May 12, 2004; that he waived his right to submit a statement regarding the 
discharge; and that he waived unconditionally his right to an administrative separation board.   
 
 
On  June  9,  2004,  the  applicant's  CO  recommended  that  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  discharge  the  applicant  expeditiously  with  an  OTH  (other  than 
                                                 
1   Chapter 20 of the Personnel Manual defines a drug incident as intentional drug abuse, wrongful possession of, or 
trafficking in drugs.  This definition further states that a civil or military conviction for wrongful use, possession, 
etc., of controlled substances is prima facie evidence of a drug incident.  The member need not be found guilty at 
court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment for the behavior to be considered a drug 
incident.   

 

 

 

honorable discharge) by reason of misconduct due to involvement in a drug incident.  The CO 
noted that the applicant was incarcerated at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center and 
that he had been indicted on various drug and gun charges.2   
  
 
 
On  July  19,  2004,  CGPC  directed  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  under  other  than 
honorable  conditions  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to  involvement  with  drugs  under  Article 
12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
honorable conditions. 
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
 

On July 19, 2004, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard under other than 

Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant applied to the DRB to 
have his under other than honorable conditions upgraded.  On September 5, 2006, 
the  Commandant  approved  the  DRB’s  decision  not  to  upgrade  the  applicant 
discharge.    According to the DRB report, the applicant stated that his discharge 
was unfair under the circumstances; that he was never convicted of any criminal 
charges while in the Coast Guard; and that page 7 entries and absences without 
leave  are  not  a  sufficient  basis  on  which  to  award  an  other  than  honorable 
discharge.   
 

In denying relief to the applicant, the DRB discussion and conclusion were as follows: 
 

[DRB]  members  thoroughly  reviewed  the  applicant’s  record  of  service  and  all 
available  documentation.    The  discharge  package  clearly  documented  the 
circumstances  and  basis  for  the  Under  Other  Than  Honorable  Discharge.    The 
applicant  was  given  all  required  notices  and  accorded  all  of  his  rights.    The 
applicant was indicted by civil authorities for numerous drug trafficking charges 
and was incarcerated at the time of his discharge.  The applicant did not provide 
the  Board  with  the  outcome  of  the  civil  criminal  indictment.    Despite  the 
applicant’s  assertion  that  he  was  not  convicted  while  on  active  duty,  the 
indictment was sufficient to warrant discharge due to a drug incident.  The [DRB] 
felt that the discharge was carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy.   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
On February 1, 2008, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General (JAG), recommending that the Board deny the applicant's request for relief.  The JAG 
adopted the facts and analysis provided by CGPC, which was attached as enclosure (1) to the 
advisory opinion.  CGPC offered the following: 
 

                                                 
2  The Coast Guard submitted evidence with its advisory opinion that the applicant was subsequently convicted of 
the charges alleged in the indictment and sentenced to over 17 years in prison.   
 

A complete review of the applicant’s record does not reveal an error or injustice 
with regard to the applicant’s separation processing or the assignment of an other 
than  honorable  discharge.    The  applicant  was  involved  in  a  drug  incident  as 
determined  by  the  command  and  was  provided  with  legal  counsel  and  he 
voluntarily  elected  to  unconditionally  waive  his  right  to  an  administrative 
separation  board  .  .  .  The  applicant’s  case  was  reviewed  by  the  Coast  Guard 
Discharge Review Board whose unanimous recommendation, as approved by the 
Commandant, that the applicant’s discharge remain unchanged  . . .   
 
The applicant alleges that his conduct while in the service supports the assignment 
of a general discharge and since his drug incident did not occur on Coast Guard 
property  that  he  is  being  unjustly  served  by  the  assignment  of  an  other  than 
honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record manifestly supports a drug incident 
through his federal indictment . . . The applicant does not deny a drug incident or 
the appropriateness of his discharge, only the character of service assigned.  The 
applicant maintains that he was subject to a conspiracy making him a scapegoat, 
and  that  he  was  sentenced  regarding  the  charges  after  his  discharge  from  the 
Coast Guard.  However, there is nothing in the applicant’s record to support such, 
nor does the applicant’s subsequent conviction and incarceration on these charges 
. . .  lend credibility to his assertions of injustice by the federal agents/prosecutors.   
 
Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  prescribes  not  less  than  a  general 
discharge  for  involvement  with  drugs.        This  does  not  prohibit  granting  a  less 
desirable discharge than general.  The grave nature of the applicant’s misconduct 
relative  to  the  drug  incident  sufficiently  justifies  the  other  than  honorable 
discharge he was awarded.   
 

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

  

Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
 
 

Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

 
 
On March 13, 2008, the Board received the applicant rebuttal to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  The applicant suggested that the conspiracy charge was a trumped up charge and that 
“the  proceedings  are  still  pending  court  rulings.”    He  alleged  that  the  military  lawyer,  who 
advised him on whether to waive the administrative board hearing and other issues, reassured 
him that he would receive a general discharge “since the case was still pending trial and there 
was no conviction at that time.”  He alleged moreover that the military lawyer did not explain to 
him that he could have a military lawyer at the government’s expense, but that he would have to 
pay his civilian lawyer to represent him before an administrative board.   He again requested to 
be granted a general discharge in accordance with his interpretation of the Personnel Manual.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Involvement with Drugs.  Any member involved in a drug incident or the illegal, 
wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction  onto  military 
installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard 
with no higher than a general discharge . . . 

Article  20.A.2.K. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

 

 

 

This provision of the Personnel Manual defines a drug incident as intentional drug abuse, 
wrongful  possession  of,  or  trafficking  in  drugs.    This  definition  further  states  that  a  civil  or 
military  conviction  for  wrongful  use,  possession,  etc.,  of  controlled  substances  is  prima  facie 
evidence of a drug incident.  The member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian 
court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment for the behavior to be considered a drug incident.   
 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 

Section  two  of  the  SPD  Handbook  authorizes  only  the  assignment  of  an  RE-4 
reenlistment  code  for  the  JKK  separation  code.    The  SPD  Handbook  states  that  the  JKK 
separation code is appropriate when there is an "[i]nvoluntary discharge directed by established 
directive (no board entitlement) when a member is involved in drug abuse, which is the illegal, 
wrongful or improper use, possession, sale, transfer or introduction on a military installation of 
any narcotic substance …" 
 

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 

States Code.  The application was timely.   
 

2.        The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or 
injustice  in  discharging  him  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  for  involvement  in  a  drug 
incident.  Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states that any member “involved in a 
drug  incident  or  the  illegal,  wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction 
onto military installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard 
with no higher than a general discharge.”  Article 20.A.2.k. of the Personnel Manual states that a 
member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded NJP for such 
conduct to be considered a drug incident. The applicant’s arrest and subsequent indictment by 
civilian authorities for various drug and gun charges formed a sufficient basis for his command 
to  find  that  he  was  involved  in  a  drug  incident.      The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  was 
subsequently convicted and sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for orchestrating a cocaine 
shipment through Baltimore-Washington International Airport.   

 
3.    The  applicant’s  interpretation  that  under  Article  12.B.18.b.4.a.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual,  he  should  have  been  awarded  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  is 
incorrect.   The provision merely limits the highest discharge that can be awarded in a drug case 

to a general discharge.  It does not prevent the Commandant from awarding a discharge under 
other  than  honorable  conditions,  a  less  favorable  discharge  than  a  general  discharge  under 
honorable  conditions.    In  this  case,  the  Commandant  determined  that  a  discharge  under  other 
than honorable conditions was appropriate.  The Board notes that the DRB was also satisfied that 
the  applicant’s  discharge  was  proper.      The  evidence  presented  by  the  applicant  does  not 
persuade the Board that the Commandant abused his discretion in awarding a discharge under 
other than honorable conditions to the applicant under the circumstances of this case.   

  
4.  The applicant was provided with his due process rights and chose to waive his right to 
an administrative discharge board hearing.  The applicant’s current allegation that his military 
lawyer assured him that he would receive a general discharge even if he waived his right to an 
administrative  discharge  board  fails  for  lack  of  proof.  The  only  evidence  in  the  record  is  the 
applicant’s signed statement waiving his right to an administrative discharge board without any 
conditions.   Accordingly, the applicant’s allegation in this regard is not sufficient to prove that 
he did not knowingly waive his right to an administrative discharge board.    
 
 
should be denied.  
 
 
 
 

5.  The  applicant  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  case.  Accordingly,  relief 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Robert S. Johnson 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
record is denied.