DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-087 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

 

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 March 7, 2008, 
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 November 25, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by changing his RE-4 (not eligible to 
reenlist)  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3  (eligible  for  reenlistment  with  waiver).    The  applicant 
enlisted in the active duty Coast Guard on July 2, 1984.  He was honorably discharged on May 
13,  1988,  by  reason  of  “general  demobilization  reduction  in  authorized  strength,”  with  a 
corresponding KCC (general demobilization) separation code,  and an RE-4 reenlistment code.  
At the time of his discharge he had served three years, ten months, and twelve days on active 
duty.    
 

The applicant stated that at the time of his discharge, he did not understand what the RE-
4 reenlistment code meant.   He stated that because he had an honorable discharge, he did not 
realize until a recent visit to an Army recruiter that the RE-4 was a bar to reenlistment.  He stated 
that he has matured since his discharge from the Coast Guard, approximately twenty years ago. 
 

The  applicant  stated  that  he  discovered  the  alleged  error  on  January  29,  2007,  and  he 
asserted that it is in the interest of justice to consider his application because “[a]t the time of 
discharge it was not explained to me what the consequences [were] of having an RE-4 and my 
discharge was done in a rush and I wasn’t fully aware of what was going on. I wish to have this 
upgraded so that I may serve in the U.S. Army.”   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

on July 2, 1984.   

to ALCOAST 014/87. 

  The applicant’s military record indicates that he enlisted in the active duty Coast Guard 

 
On February 11, 1988, the applicant requested an early release from active duty pursuant 

 
On March 18, 1988, the Commandant approved the applicant’s discharge by reason of 
convenience of the government and directed his discharge within 60 days from the date of the 
message approving said discharge. 

 
On  April  11,  1988,  the  applicant  signed  an  administrative  remarks  entry  (page  7) 
informing him that his commanding officer (CO) had not recommended him for reenlistment and 
that he had 15 days to appeal the CO’s decision not to  recommend him for reenlistment.  The 
page 7 stated in pertinent part: 

 
This serves as notification that [the applicant] is not recommended and as such 
not eligible for reenlistment and will be assigned reenlistment code RE-4.  [The 
applicant] has exhibited a lack of adaptability for military life and a disregard for 
rules, regulations and standards expected of military personnel.  He has failed to 
perform in  a trustworthy manner  as a watch stander and has been unreliable in 
performing other assigned duties.  While assigned to port operations marine safety 
information  system,  [the  applicant]  hid  case  files  and  failed  to  take  action  to 
process  cases  drastically  curtailing  the  efficiency  of  that  section.    He  adversely 
affects others with whom he is assigned to work by setting a poor example and 
failure to carry out assigned tasks.   
 
On  April  26,  1988,  the  applicant  appealed  the  CO’s  determination  that  he  was  not 
recommended  for  reenlistment.    He  argued  that  his  entire  work  history  was  not  taken  into 
account  or  was  possibly  unknown  by  his  supervisors  at  the  time  of  the recommendation.    He 
stated  that  during  his  15  months in  the Port  Operation  Department  he  quickly  adapted  to  and 
qualified for the duties to which he was assigned.  He further stated the following: 

 
There are a number of inaccuracies in the stated reasons for not recommending 
me for reenlistment.  One prime example had to do with my duties in the Port 
Operations  MSIS.    For  a  month  during  this  assignment  I  was  the  only  MSIS 
operator  and, in addition, was required to stand  command duty watch 12 hours 
every other day.  This and not my inability to do the work led to the decline in 
MSIS efficiency.  I take pride in my appearance and have always complied with 
standards  in  the  Coast  Guard  Uniform  Regulations  and  feel  that  individual 
misinterpretation  resulted  in  the  counseling  I  received  and  not  any  failure  to 
comply on my part.   

I meet all the requirements for reenlistment contained in [the Personnel Manual] 
except for the recommendation of the [CO].  I do not feel that the command has 

 

anything  personal  against  me,  but  simply  made  a  recommendation  based  on 
incomplete, inaccurate and, to some degree, uninformed information.   
 
. . . However, I realize that, like everyone else, I have made mistakes.  However, I 
have done nothing to warrant denying me the opportunity to return to the military 
or  other  federal  service  in  the  future  .  .  .  I  want  to  enlist  in  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve, something the assigned reenlistment code prevents.   

 
 
On May 9, 1988, the CO recommended that the Commandant deny the applicant’s appeal 
of the CO’s decision not to recommend the applicant for reenlistment.  The CO stated that the 
applicant did not present anything in his appeal to refute the facts contained in his service record 
or to alter the CO’s evaluation of his suitability for reenlistment.   
 
 
On May 13, 1988, the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged from the 
Coast Guard.  The applicant’s military record reveals that upon discharge his overall final marks 
averages were:  military 3.7; teamwork, 4.2; work, 4.0; leadership, 3.6, representing the Coast 
Guard, 4.0, and human relations, 3.9.   
 

The Commandant denied the applicant’s appeal of the CO’s determination that he was not 
recommended for reenlistment.  The date on the Commandant’s message denying the applicant’s 
appeal appears to be June 3, 1988. 
 
Applicant’s Disciplinary and Counseling Record 
 

On December 3, 1987, a page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record counseling him that 

On August 27, 1987, the applicant was punished at captain’s mast for failing to yield to a 
sentry and for violating an order by possessing weapon in his room.  He was ordered to forfeit 
$100 per month for one month and he received an oral admonition. 
 
 
On September 30, 1987, his eligibility period for a good conduct award was terminated 
because he had received a mark of 2 in conduct that was a result of the August 27, 1987 captain’s 
mast.  
 
 
on November 19, 1987, he failed to properly relieve the command desk watch.   
 
 
grooming standards.   
 
 
On March 31, 1988, a page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record documenting a mark of 
3 in conduct due to his failure to conform to the rules, regulations, and military standards that 
were noted in earlier counseling entries.  The running of his then-eligibility period for a good 
conduct award was terminated.   
 

On February 10, 1988, the applicant was counseled on his failure to maintain and meet 

Applicant’s Medals and Training Record 
 
 
The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he earned the Good Conduct award for period 
of service  ending July 1, 1987.  He also earned  the Coast Guard Sea Service Ribbon and the 
Coast Guard Rife Marksmanship Ribbon.   A page 7 dated April 13, 1988 states that the applicant 
was authorized the Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period April 26, 1986 to 
December 31, 1987.  
 
 
Sprinkler System course.   
 

The  applicant  completed  the  11-week  GM  “A”  School  and  the  1-week  Magazine 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On July 15, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.   In recommending denial of relief, 
the JAG argued that the application was untimely because it was filed more than 17 years after 
the  applicant’s  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    He  stated  that  applications  for  correction  of 
military records must be filed within three years of the date the alleged error or injustice was, or 
should have been, discovered.  33 CFR § 52.22.  He said that the Board may waive the statute of 
limitations  and  consider  the  case  if  an  applicant  presents  sufficient  evidence  that  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to do so.  The JAG stated that the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, 
and  the  likelihood  of  the  applicant's  success  on  the  merits  of  his  claim  are  factors  to  be 
considered  in  deciding  whether  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations.    The  JAG  stated  that  the 
applicant  was  aware  or  should  have  been  aware  of  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code  when  he  was 
discharged in 1988.  In this regard, the JAG noted that on May 13, 1988 the applicant was issued 
a discharge certificate that showed the RE-4 reenlistment code.  The JAG further noted that prior 
to his discharge, the applicant was informed by and acknowledged on a page 7 that he was not 
recommended for reenlistment, which the applicant appealed.  The appeal was denied on June 3, 
1988.   Therefore, the JAG argued that the applicant should have filed his BCMR application no 
later than June 1991.   

 
The JAG stated that the applicant’s claim that he did not discover the alleged error until 
January 2007 does not overcome the fact that the applicant was informed through a page 7 of the 
CO’s decision not to recommend him for reenlistment.  The JAG noted that the applicant did not 
provide  any  evidence  that  warranted  the  excusal  of  his  failure  to  file  a  timely  application  for 
correction.   

 
The  JAG  stated  that  absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  government  officials  are 
presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  Arens v. United 
States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992).  Moreover, he stated that the applicant bears the burden of 
proving error under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24 and that he has failed to meet his burden in this case.  The 
JAG further stated the following: 

 
[Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command’s  (CGPC)] thorough  review  of 
the applicant’s service record did not reveal any evidence to support Applicant’s 
claim.  Applicant’s record reflects an overall average performance throughout his 

enlistment which deteriorated during his last year, culminating in a [CO’s] [non-
judicial  punishment].    Furthermore,  applicant  failed  to  provide  any  further 
documentation  to  reflect  his  activities,  accomplishments,  and  conduct  over  the 
past twenty years which would be needed for the Coast Guard to consider such 
upgrade.    Finally,  although  claiming  a  desire  to  enlist  in  the  U.S.  Army,  the 
applicant  has  also  failed  to  provide  the  documentation  to  support  his  alleged 
dealings with the Army, or the Army’s desire to reenlist him following an upgrade 
of his reenlistment code.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On July 17, 2008, the Board sent a copy of the Coast Guard views to the applicant for a 

 
reply.  The Board 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: 
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.   

 
 
2.  The  application  was  not  timely.    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.  The alleged error occurred at the time of the 
applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard on May 13, 1988.  The applicant claimed that he did 
not discover the error until January 2007 upon visiting an Army recruiter.  However, he should 
have  discovered  it  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  upon 
discharge the applicant was given a DD Form 214, which he signed that showed the assignment 
of an RE-4 reenlistment code.  Moreover, on April 26, 1988, the applicant appealed the RE-4 
reenlistment  code,  which  was  denied  on  June  13,  1988.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the 
applicant knew or should have known of the alleged error at the time of his discharge in 1988.    
 

3.  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."   The court further instructed that “the longer the delay has 
been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the merits would need to 
be to justify a full review.” Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 
1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

 
 
4.  The applicant argued that if his application is untimely, it would be in the interest of 
justice to excuse his untimeliness because the consequences of an RE-4 reenlistment code were 
not explained to him at the time of his discharge.  However, the applicant stated in his appeal,   
“I have done nothing to warrant denying me the opportunity to return to the military or other 

federal service in the future.”  This statement is sufficient to prove that the applicant was aware 
at the time of discharge that an RE-4 would probably prevent his return to the military.   Yet, he 
did  nothing  about  it  for  almost  twenty  years.    The  applicant’s  explanation  for  not  filing  his 
application sooner is insufficient to persuade the Board to waive the statute of limitations in the 
interest of justice.   
 

5. However, as discussed in Finding 3, the Board must also perform a cursory review of 
the merits in deciding whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s untime-
liness.  With respect to the merits of his claim, the Board finds based upon a cursory review that 
the applicant is not likely to prevail.  COMDTINST M1900.4B (change 3) authorized either an 
RE-1 (recommended for reenlistment) or an RE-4 for a discharge by reason of general demobi-
lization.  The evidence of record supports the assignment of an RE-4 in the applicant’s case.  In 
this regard, the applicant failed to meet all of the necessary requirements for reenlistment under 
Article 1.G.5. of the Personnel Manual.  Under this provision, not only must a member have the 
minimum performance factor averages, meet the physical qualifications, and be a citizen of the 
United States, but the member must also have the CO’s recommendation for reenlistment.   The 
CO did not recommend the applicant for reenlistment and provided justification for not doing so 
in a page 7 that the applicant acknowledged by signature on April 11, 1988.  In that entry the CO 
stated that the applicant had ailed to adapt to military life; disregarded the Coast Guard’s rules, 
regulations,  and  standards;  was  unreliable  and  not  trustworthy;  and  had  an  adverse  affect  on 
those  with  whom  he  worked.    In  effect,  the  CO  determined  that  the  applicant’s  potential  for 
continued service was poor.  In addition, the applicant’s service record suggests that during the 
last year of his service, he had a captain’s mast and several negative page 7 entries.  Furthermore, 
the CO stated that the applicant hid case files and failed to take action on them, which negatively 
affected the efficiency of the office to which he was assigned.  The applicant was afforded due 
process through his appeal of the RE-4 reenlistment code, which was denied.  The applicant has 
provided no evidence to overcome the presumption that the CO carried out his duties correctly, 
lawfully, and in good faith in not recommending the applicant for reenlistment.  

 
6.  The Commandant’s message denying the applicant’s appeal of his RE-4 reenlistment 
code  appears  to  have  occurred  after  the  issuance  of  his  DD  Form  214.    It  would  have  been 
preferable  to  have  the  sequence  of  events  reversed.    However,  the  applicant  has  presented  no 
evidence, and there is none in the military record, to suggest that the Commandant would have 
approved the applicant’s appeal of his RE-4 reenlistment code.  In addition, nothing in Article 
12.B.5. of the Personnel Manual stated that the appeal of an RE-4 reenlistment code delayed the 
discharge of a member with less than 8 years of service. It is important to note that in this case 
the applicant was not challenging his discharge, and in fact he had requested to be discharged as 
part of a general demobilization of personnel.  Therefore, even if his appeal of the RE-4 had been 
successful, the correction could have taken place after his discharge simply be correcting the DD 
Form 214.   

 
7.  The Board notes that the applicant requested an RE-3 reenlistment code so that he can 
join the Army.  However, neither the then-regulation, nor the current one, authorizes an RE-3 
reenlistment code for a discharge by reason of general demobilization.   
 

8.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  upgrade  of  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code 

should be denied because the application is untimely and because of its lack of merit. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Robert F. Parker 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.