DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2009-003 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 October 3, 2008, upon receipt 
of  the  applicant’s  completed  application,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare 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  May  21,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

 

 

 

The applicant, who was honorably discharged on October 2, 1985, upon the expiration of 
his first enlistment, asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-4 (not eligible to 
reenlist) to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist)  and to “correct the 1 day of engineering certifications.”  
He asked that his “fire fighting for engineering be changed to the correct time of service.” 

 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the errors on his DD 214 on September 1, 2008.  
He stated that the Board should correct the injustice in his military record because it has affected 
his life “in a negative way.  It made [him] feel that they did not want African Americans in the 
service until they can place them up front in combat.  [He] just want[s] to serve and can’t carry it 
around with [him] anymore.”  He stated that he wants to reenlist but cannot because of the RE-4.  

 
The applicant stated that he enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1981 after three years in the 

Army ROTC.  However, he was assigned to a cutter, and his chief  

 
did not like the fact that he had a seaman on his boat that was Army that he felt did not belong 
there.  That’s when it all started.  You can call it prejudice, I called it inhumane treatment.  I was 
ordered to go out to paint in the rain by myself along with other cruelties that a young man should 
not endure.  The other crew members were following me around and looking at me in the showers 
because they were told that black people had tails like monkeys.  It was not a very good time for 
me and when my mom got sick I transferred (hardship) back to California.  There it was better in 
the  Fire  Department  where  I  received  my  training  as  an  Engineer.    It  was  more  than  a  year  of 
training and when they asked me to reenlist and I said no, they placed 1 day of training on my 
records and the RE-code 4 “not eligible” to reenlist after they asked me to do so. 

 
The  applicant  further  stated  that  he  is  now  a  college  graduate  and  wants  to  serve  his 
country as he believes the leadership and diversity of the Armed Forces have improved.  In sup-
port  of  his  application,  he  submitted  his  DD  214;  a  California  State  certificate  dated  May  1, 
1985,  acknowledging  his  satisfactory  completion  of  Fire  Fighter  1  class;  a  California  State 
certificate dated November 14, 1985 (following his discharge from the Coast Guard), acknowl-
edging his satisfactory completion of Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator I class; and a letter from 
the  registrar  of  the  University  of  Phoenix  verifying  that  the  applicant  graduated  on  April  30, 
2008, with an Associate of Arts in Business degree. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 

On September 28, 1981, at 18 years of age, the applicant enlisted as a seaman (SN/E-3) 
in the Coast Guard for four years.  He was enlisted as an E-3, rather than an E-1, based upon his 
participation in the Junior ROTC for three years and his high school diploma.   

 
On  November  20,  1981,  upon  completing  boot  camp,  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  a 
large cutter homeported in Portsmouth, Virginia.  On January 28, 1982, the applicant submitted a 
request to attend “A” School to become a subsistence specialist (SS). 

 
On May 3, 1982, the applicant was counseled about “his poor performance of duty during 
the 9 day OLP completed today.  [He] was further advised that he is to be held fully accountable 
for his actions or lack thereof.” 

 
On July 30, 1982, the applicant was advised that his orders to attend SS “A” School had 
been canceled and that he had been suspended from the waiting list until December 31, 1982, 
because he needed to improve his “attitude, appearance, and performance of duty to qualify for 
assignment to Class ‘A’ School.” 

 
On February 10, 1983, the applicant was taken to captain’s mast for having been derelict 
in the performance of his duty by failing to make rounds while assigned to the watch on January 
24, 1983.  He was awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP) consisting of a reduction in rate and 
pay grade to seaman apprentice (SA/E-2), which was suspended for two months on condition of 
good behavior, and he was assigned 14 days of extra duties.  The suspension was not vacated, so 
his rate was not actually reduced as a result of this mast. 
 

On April 5, 1983, the applicant requested a humanitarian transfer to the San Francisco 
Bay area so that he could care for his mother, who had been disabled in a motor vehicle accident 
and had no other family who could care for her.  His  commanding officer (CO) endorsed his 
request the same day.  The CO noted that although the applicant’s “performance has been mar-
ginal at times, he is intelligent and capable.  With close supervision he can do acceptable work.  I 
believe him sincere in his desire to help his mother; perhaps this responsibility will hasten his 
maturation.”   

 
On  June  17,  1983,  the  applicant  was  taken  to  mast  and  awarded  NJP  by  his  CO  for 
“wrongfully appropriat[ing] a foul [weather] jacket and coveralls, the property of U.S. Govern-

ment, and personal clothing of a crewmember.”  He was reduced in rate to SA/E-2 and fined 
one-half pay per month for two months. 

 
On July 13, 1983, after Coast Guard Headquarters received information from the appli-
cant’s mother’s doctors, the applicant was granted a temporary humanitarian transfer from the 
cutter to a shore command in the Bay area because of his mother’s disability.  He was to report to 
the new unit on July 30, 1983. 

 
On July 21, 1983, the applicant was taken to captain’s mast again for having been absent 
without  leave  from  his  unit  from  July  9  through  13,  1983.    As  a  result  of  this  unauthorized 
absence,  his  enlistment  was  extended  by  five  days.    The  CO  awarded  him  NJP  consisting  of 
seven days’ restriction to base and two hours of extra duty each day for seven days. 

 
On July 30, 1983, the applicant reported for duty at the Coast Guard Support Center in 

Alameda, California.  His mother was documented as his dependent.   

 
On  January  24,  1984,  the  applicant’s  humanitarian  transfer  was  made  permanent.    His 
new  CO  noted  that  the  applicant’s  mother  was  still  disabled  and  that  the  applicant  had  “per-
formed  in  a  satisfactory  manner”  and  had  “not  been  a  disciplinary  problem,”  since  reporting 
aboard.  On October 3, 1984, the applicant’s mother was removed as a dependent upon the appli-
cant’s request, and his housing allowance was reduced to reflect the change. 

 
The applicant’s evaluation marks sheet indicates that he was taken to mast and awarded 

 
NJP on October 31, 1984, for an offense that was not described in his record.  
 
On April 5, 1985, the applicant was counseled about the upcoming end of his enlistment.  
 
He was advised that he was recommended for reenlistment, but he told the command that he was 
undecided. 
 
 
ing alcohol while on duty.  He was awarded NJP of 14 days of extra duty. 
 

On June 25, 1985, the applicant was taken to mast for disobeying a lawful order by drink-

The applicant’s evaluation marks sheet indicates that he was taken to mast and awarded 

NJP again on July 14, 1985, for an offense that was not described in his record.  
 

On August 6, 1985, the applicant was counseled about his failure to report to perform the 

extra duties he had been awarded as NJP on July 14, 1985. 
 
 
On October 2, 1985, the applicant was honorably discharged upon the expiration of his 
enlistment.  He was still an E-2 without a skill rating.  His DD 214 and a Personnel Action entry 
in his record indicate that he was not recommended for reenlistment and assigned an RE-4.  Both 
forms were signed by the applicant. 
 

Achievement  Sheets  in  the  applicant’s  record  show  that  he  attended  a  one-day  class 
called  Basic  Structural  Fire  Fighting  on  July  13,  1984;  and  two  one-day  classes,  called  Fire 
Fighter 1 and Volunteer Fire Fighter, on May 1, 1985.  These classes are noted in the “Military 

Education” section of his DD 214 (block 14), which shows the following training:  “Fire Fighter 
1, 1 day, May 1985; Volunteer Fire Fighter, 1 day, May 1985; Basic Structural Fire Fighting,  
1 day, July 1984.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  February  10,  2009,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on 
the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   

 
CGPC noted that the application was submitted untimely and that the applicant “provided 
no  justification  for  the  delay  in  filing.”    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  request  should  be 
denied based on its untimeliness and lack of merit. 

 
CGPC noted that there are four court memoranda documenting NJPs in the applicant’s 

record and that he was still an E-2 when he was discharged after four years of service. 

 
CGPC stated that while the applicant was apparently recommended for reenlistment on 
April 5, 1985, under Article 4.B.11.g. of the Personnel Manual, he was not actually authorized to 
reenlist without the approval of CGPC because of his humanitarian transfer. 

 
CGPC  noted  that  members  discharged  when  their  enlistments  expire  may  be  assigned 
only the RE-1 (eligible) or RE-4 (ineligible) reenlistment codes.  CGPC alleged that there is no 
documentation in the applicant’s record regarding his not being recommended for reenlistment, 
but argued that the RE-4 was not unjust given his substandard conduct, lack of a skill rating, and 
unresolved humanitarian assignment at the time of his discharge. 

 
CGPC stated that the work that the applicant was assigned, which he attributed to preju-
dice, “is not inconsistent with work typically assigned to non-rated personnel or personnel of his 
pay grade.”  CGPC also noted the applicant’s disciplinary problems while assigned to the cutter 
and to the Support Center in Alameda. 

 
With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  training,  CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  complaint  is 
unclear but that the classes he took on active duty are shown on the DD 214.  CGPC noted that 
the applicant apparently took the one-day Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator I class after his dis-
charge, so it would not be documented on his DD 214. 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  February  19,  2009,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 12-B-4.a. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1985 stated the following regarding 

 
 
the reenlistment of enlisted members: 
 

In general, a member who meets the standards for an honorable discharge set forth in Article 12-
B-2.f.  should  be  eligible  for  reenlistment,  except  where  the  reason  for  discharge  precludes 
reenlistment, such as physical disqualification, disability, unsuitability, misconduct … .  It is not 
the intent to encourage commanding officers to refuse reenlistment to those individuals who have 
demonstrated a potential  for a successful and productive career in the Coast Guard.  Generally, 
commanding officers will not be allowed to reenlist individuals in the E-2 paygrade.  Personnel 
who are at the E-2 paygrade at the end of their enlistment shall be assigned the classification of 
Not Eligible for Reenlistment and provision of Article 12-B-5 shall be adhered to. …  However, 
personnel  …  whose personal problems have resulted in  hardship assignments beyond  4  months 
shall be considered poor risks and therefore shall be screened carefully prior to being considered 
for reenlistment. 

 
 
Article 12-B-5 provided that if at the time of the pre-discharge interview “or at any time 
subsequent  thereto,  a  commanding  officer  determines  that  an  enlisted member  [with  less  than 
eight years of service] is not eligible for reenlistment,” the command had to inform the member 
of the reason he was not eligible for reenlistment and of his right to appeal the decision within 
fifteen days. 
 

Chapter 1.E. of the manual for completing DD 214s, COMDTINST M1900.4D, states the 

following about what information should be entered in block 14, “Military Education”: 
 

To assist the former service member in employment placement and job counseling, those formal 
service schools and in-service training courses captured in PMIS/JUMPS and successfully com-
pleted during the period of service covered by the form  will be in this block, e.g.,  medical and 
dental, electronics, supply administration, personnel, or heavy equipment operations.  
 

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 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

Under 10  U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years of the date the applicant discovered or reasonably should have 
discovered the alleged error in his record.  Although the applicant claimed that he discovered the 
alleged errors on his DD 214 in September 2008, the Board finds that he knew or should have 
known about the allegedly erroneous information on his DD 214 when he received and signed it 
and the Personnel Action page on October 2, 1985.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), however, the Board may excuse the untimeliness 
of an application if 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 to determine 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 

1. 
  
2. 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

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.”1  
 
 
Other than stating that he is tired of having the RE-4 and wants to reenlist, the 
applicant did not explain why he waited more than twenty years to seek correction of the alleged 
errors.  He has not provided a compelling reason for his long delay. 
 

A cursory review of the record reveals that the applicant’s allegations of error and 
injustice are not corroborated.  Although he claimed that his DD 214 should show a year of train-
ing, there is no evidence that he attended more than a few one-day fireman’s classes while on 
active duty, and those he attended during his enlistment are already shown on his DD 214.  It is 
possible that the applicant underwent some on-the-job training, but under the rules for complet-
ing DD 214s in COMDTINST M1900.4D, only formal service schools and training courses suc-
cessfully completed may be recorded in block 14 on a DD 214.  In addition, there is no evidence 
corroborating  the  applicant’s  allegations  of  maltreatment.    His  military  records  show  that  the 
applicant was enlisted as an E-3 because of his three years in the JROTC, but that because of 
repeated disciplinary and performance problems, he was punished at mast several times, never 
earned a petty officer’s skill rating, and was reduced from E-3 to E-2.  Article 12-B-4.a. of the 
Personnel Manual in effect in 1985 clearly stated that members who were still E-2s after four 
years in the service should not be eligible for reenlistment.  While the applicant was apparently 
told on April 5, 1985, that he was eligible to reenlist, that information was incorrect.  Moreover, 
the  applicant  was  punished  twice  more  at  mast  for  misconduct  he  committed  after  that  coun-
seling session on April 5, 1985, and before his discharge on October 2, 1985.  His command’s 
decision to assign him an RE-4 code is presumptively correct2 and amply supported by the docu-
mentation of his poor performance and discipline.  The fact that the applicant has recently com-
pleted an Associate of Arts in Business degree and wants to reenlist does not persuade the Board 
that his RE-4 code is erroneous or unjust.  The Board finds that his claims cannot prevail on the 
merits. 
  
 
Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the 
statute  of  limitations  or  to  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  the  application  in  this  case  because  the 
applicant has failed to justify his long delay in seeking relief and because his claims cannot pre-
vail upon the merits.  Therefore, his requests should be denied. 

6. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United 
States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979),  for  the  required  presumption,  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that 
Government officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”). 

The application of former SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

 

 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter