DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-056 
 
XXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxxx, FN (former) 
   

 

 
 

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 December 15, 
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  July  16,  2009,  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) so that he can reenlist 
in the armed forces.   
 
 
On January 20, 1989, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of unsuitability 
due to financial irresponsibility, with a JMH1 separation code and the RE-4 reenlistment code.  
At the time of his discharge, he had served three years, five months, and two days in the Coast 
Guard.   
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  unsuitability  discharge  due  to  financial  hardship  was 
 
unjust.  He stated that although he discovered the alleged error in 1989, it is in the interest of 
justice to consider the application even though more than three years have passed because he was 
unaware of the meaning of the separation and reenlistment codes at the time of discharge. 
 

                                                 
1 Pursuant to Chapter 2 of COMDTINST 1900, a JMH separation code is assigned when a member is discharged by 
reason of unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.  This provision also mandated the assignment of an RE-4 
reenlistment code.    

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The military record indicates that the applicant served on active duty in the Navy prior to 
enlisting in the Coast Guard.  He enlisted in the active duty Coast Guard on August 19, 1985 and 
was discharged on January 20, 1989. 

 
The  applicant’s  military  record  shows  that  on  May  15,  1986,  August  14,  1986,  and 
January 7, 1987, the applicant was counseled about his excessive indebtedness.  On May 3, 1988, 
the applicant was counseled about his continued trend of continued non-payment of his debts and 
he  was  referred  to  a  financial  advisor.    On  May  5,  1988,  the  applicant  was  counseled  by  a 
financial advisor.   On August 25, 1988, August 29, 1988, and September 15, 1988, the applicant 
was counseled about his continued non payment of debt and financial problems.  

 
On October 4, 1988, the applicant’s officer-in-charge (OIC) placed the applicant on a six-
month probationary period due to financial irresponsibility.  During this probationary period, the 
applicant was supposed  to make payment of rent in full and on time, to make  payment of all 
utilities in full and on time; to make payment of all charge accounts in full and on time, to make 
payment  of  back  rent  owed  to  previous  landlords  in  full  and  on  time;  and  to  cease  writing 
insufficient  fund  checks.    The  applicant  was  warned  that  any  violation  of  the  terms  of  the 
probation would result in immediate discharge.  The applicant acknowledged the probation with 
his signature. 
 
 
On November 8, 1988, the OIC suspended the applicant’s probation because the applicant 
had not made any effort to pay ERA realty for back rent.  ERA realty wrote the OIC a letter date 
November 2, 1988, complaining that the applicant still owed back rent.  The OIC noted that the 
applicant had made no effort to repay the debt until he was contacted by the realtor.  The OIC 
stated that the applicant’s failure to contact the realtor to make arrangements for payment of the 
back  rent  was  a  violation  of  probation.    He  was  told  that  as  a  result  of  the  violation 
administrative separation proceedings would begin. 

 
 
On November 9, 1988, the OIC informed the applicant that the OIC was recommending 
that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability due to financial 
irresponsibility.  The OIC informed the applicant of the following: 
 

You  have  been  counseled  by  this  command  numerous  times  on  your  continued 
trend of non-payment of debts . . . you were placed on six months probation on 4 
October 1988.  There was a list of items for you to comply with which you did not 
do so.   
 
You received counseling until the problem became a matter in which  you were 
told that you were being considered for discharge.  This command then set up and 
gave  you time off to seek counseling from the  financial advisor at K.I.  Sawyer 
AFB.  This counseling gave you a set “budget” to follow based on your income 
and debts.  You chose to ignore this and continued your trend of non-payment of 
the debts on which you already owed while also incurring new debts.   
 

You  were  directed  to  report  to  your  supervisor  if  you  were  having  any  other 
problems  concerning  your  finances.    You  also  chose  to  ignore  this  and  your 
supervisor  found  out  through  outside  sources  that  you  incurred  more  debts  and 
also had not paid any of your household bills, i.e. rent, phone, electric, gas.  You 
also knowingly wrote checks on an account that had no funds. 

   
 
An  undated  letter  from  the  applicant  about  the  proposed  discharge  is  in  the  military 
record.  The applicant stated that he wanted to clear up the problem so that he could continue his 
career in the Coast Guard.  He claimed that he  had paid his back rent in full, that he did not 
realize at the time that he was writing non-sufficient fund checks, which happened only once, 
and that he always paid his bills.  He denied that he had a continuous trend of non-payment of 
debts.  He stated that his bills had become larger than he had expected.  He stated that none of his 
utilities had been disconnected except for the heat and telephone.  He indicated that he had taken 
care of all of his financial problems.  He stated that his problems began with a checking account 
and a lack of knowledge about finances and budgets.  The applicant stated that he believed he 
had gained the confidence to solve his financial problem and to continue in the Coast Guard.   
 
 
On  November  9,  1988,  the  applicant’s  officer-in-charge  (OIC)  recommended  that  the 
Commandant discharge the applicant by reason of unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.  
The  OIC  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been  counseled  many  times  about  his  financial 
irresponsibility and he provided 12 enclosures documenting the counseling.  The OIC also noted 
that the applicant had been placed on a six-month probationary period.  In addition to comments 
similar to those in his letter to the applicant, the OIC wrote the following: 
 

[The applicant] has been a good worker but is slow to comprehend most things.  
He does whatever asked and never questions the authority of his superiors.  But I 
feel that he can no longer be trusted.  He has shaded, evaded the truth whenever I 
or  my  XPO,  have  tried  to  assist  him  when  he  was  being  counseled  on  [his 
financial] matters.  I feel I have no choice left but to recommend that he be given 
an administrative discharge for unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.    

 
 
On  December  14,  1988,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  waiving  his  right  to  an 
administrative discharge hearing.  He was informed that he was entitled to a hearing because he 
could have received a discharge under conditions other than honorable.  The letter also contained 
the signature of a legal officer that counseled the applicant.   
 
 
Duluth recommended the applicant’s discharge.   
 
 
and he was separated on January 20, 1989.  
 

On December 14, 1988, both the officer in charge and the Commander of Coast Guard 

On December 22, 1988, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.  The JAG noted that the application 

was  not  timely.    In  this  regard,  the  JAG  stated  that  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552  (b)  An 
application to the BCMR must be filed within three years of the day the applicant discovered the 
alleger error.  The JAG stated that the applicant was discharge in 1989 and was well aware of his 
discharge  status  and  his  reenlistment  code  since  then.    The  JAG  noted  that  the  statute  of 
limitations may be waived in the interest of justice, but the applicant provided no rationale for 
his approximately 20 year delay in filing with the BCMR.   
 
The JAG attached comments from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) as a 
 
part of the advisory opinion.  PSC stated that the application should be denied because it was 
untimely and because it lacked merit.  PSC further stated the following: 
 

A review of the applicant’s record supports that the Coast Guard complied with 
policies  for  processing  individuals  for  financial  irresponsibility.    The  applicant 
does not contend that his discharge was unjust, nor has he provided any evidence 
to support there was an error with his discharge or the assigned reenlistment code.  
The applicant contends that unsuitability is not the proper narrative reason for his 
discharge, however personnel processed under Personnel Manual, Article 12.B.16 
for financial irresponsibility are processed for unsuitability. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  the  only 
prescribed  reentry  code  for  unsuitability  discharges    .  .  .  is  an  RE-4  .  .  .    The 
applicant  has  not  substantiated  any  error  or  injustice  with  the  assigned  code.  
Further,  the  applicant  has  not  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  with  the 
processing of his discharge.  The applicant was determined to be unsuitable for 
military service due to his financial irresponsibility. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On May 4, 2009, the Board sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the applicant 

 
 
for his response.  The Board did not receive a reply. 
 

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  applicant  discovered  or  should 
have  discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.      This  application  was 
submitted  approximately  seventeen  years  beyond  the  statute  of  limitations.      The  applicant 
admitted that he discovered the alleged error on the date of his discharge from the Coast Guard.  
His statement that he was unaware of the meaning of the separation code and the reenlistment 
code  does  not  explain  why  he  did  not  take  action  sooner  to  obtain  an  understanding  of  the 

meaning of the separation and reenlistment codes.   The fact that he was discharged prior to the 
end  of  his  service  obligation  for  financial  irresponsibility  put  the  applicant  on  notice  that  he 
would encounter some problem attempting to reenter the service.  The applicant’s reason for not 
filing his application sooner is not persuasive.  
 

3.      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 stated 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.  

 
4.  With respect to a cursory review of the merits, the Board finds that the applicant is not 
likely to prevail.  As indicated by the OIC’s letter to the Commandant requesting the applicant’s 
discharge, the applicant was counseled at least five times from May 15, 1986 to August 29, 1988 
about his indebtedness, which included the non-payment of rent, non-payment of utilities, and 
writing insufficient fund checks.  As directed by Article 16.B.16.c. the applicant was placed on 
probation for six months and given specific direction on what he was required to do to correct his 
financial problems, which included the payment of or making arrangements to pay back rent to 
previous landlords.  On November 4, 1988, the applicant’s probation was terminated because he 
violated the term of the probation by failing to contact a landlord to make arrangements to pay 
back rent.   Article 16.B.16.c. of the Personnel Manual authorized CO to recommend discharge 
at any time during probation if the member is not attempting to overcome the deficiency.  The 
CO did not commit an error or injustice by terminating the applicant’s probationary period and 
recommending his discharge.  Additionally, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived 
his  right  to  an  administrative  discharge  hearing,  where  he  could  have  put  forth  his  case  for 
retention. 

 
5.    According  to  the  Chapter  2  of  COMDTINST  1900,  a  discharge  by  reason  of 
unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility mandated the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment 
code.   Therefore the code is not in error.  Nor is it unjust as the applicant was provided with the 
necessary counseling to  correct his financial irresponsibility.  Moreover, the applicant has not 
presented  any  evidence  about  his  financial  situation  since  his  discharge  that  would  allow  the 
Board to entertain changing the reenlistment code as a matter of equity.  Therefore, the Board 
would be remiss in using its equity powers to change the applicant’s reenlistment code in the 
absence of such evidence.   

 

 

 
6.  The application should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit. 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of former XXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray