DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-146 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application on May 8, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare 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 February 25, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  who  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  from  the 
Coast  Guard  on  August  30,  2003,  for  misconduct,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by 
upgrading his discharge to honorable.  The applicant stated that his discharge was inequitable 
because  his  commanding  officer  (CO)  had  told  him  that  he  would  receive  an  honorable  dis-
charge.  Because his CO misinformed him and bullied him into signing his separation papers, he 
had no opportunity to appeal his general discharge.  The applicant alleged that the general dis-
charge  was  also  unjust  because  the  State  never  charged  him  with  a  crime  and  he  was  never 
involved  with  civil  authorities.    He  stated  that  the  general  discharge  has  greatly  affected  his 
future because when he applies for jobs with police and fire departments, he is told that his gen-
eral discharge prevents his employment.  In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted 
two statements: 
 

•  Mr. M, who has been the applicant’s friend since they were 13 years old, stated that the 
applicant “has always been the hardest working guy I have known” and “live[s] by a lot 
of the core values he learned in the military.”  Mr. M stated that the applicant made mis-
takes in the Coast Guard because of immaturity but is much more mature now.  He stated 
that  the  applicant  volunteered  for  the  First  Aid  Squad  at  their  high  school  and  “has 
always  been  interested  in  helping  his  fellow  man.”    He  stated  that  the  applicant  now 
organizes volunteer projects for Habitat for Humanity and still wants to serve his country 
in the National Guard but cannot do so without an honorable discharge. 

•  Mr. S, the president of Legacy Landscapes, Inc., stated that the applicant has been a val-
ued employee since May 2005 and has risen to the position of Project Manager for some 
of their biggest projects.  Mr. S described the applicant as very dependable and trustwor-
thy.  He stated that the applicant communicates well with clients and shows good judg-
ment and leadership. 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 

 

 

On June 4, 2002, at age 20, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  On 
August 31, 2002, after completing boot camp, the applicant received a performance evaluation 
with good marks.  He advanced to fireman apprentice (E-2). 

 
On January 21, 2003, at age 21, the applicant was charged with assault and fleeing appre-
hension in violation of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  
The  Report  of  Offense  states  that,  while  wearing  a  concealed  handgun  without  a  permit,  the 
applicant was caught trying to steal a video by a local store manager.  Instead of waiting for the 
police to arrive, the applicant fled the store.  Later, when the CO ordered him to return to the 
unit, the applicant failed to obey the order.  At home, the applicant pushed a crewmate who had 
refused to give the applicant his car keys.  When the police arrived, the applicant was putting a 
sleeping bag and other personal effects in his truck.  

 
On March 19, 2003, the applicant admitted to the charges against him at mast and was 
awarded  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  including  7  days  of  correctional  custody,  14  days  of 
extra  duties,  and  reduction  in  pay  grade  from  E-2  to  E-1.    On  a  performance  evaluation,  he 
received poor marks, an unsatisfactory conduct mark, a recommendation against advancement. 

 
At 2:00 a.m. on April 15, 2003, the applicant was arrested by police for destroying sev-
eral stop signs.  The applicant had been seen dumping the signs in the front yard of a petty offi-
cer’s house earlier that night.  Tire tracks matching those of the applicant’s truck showed that he 
had  removed  the  stop  signs  by  driving  over  them.    When  arrested,  his  blood  alcohol  content 
measured 0.106.1  The misconduct and arrest were documented as the applicant’s first “alcohol 
incident” on an Administrative Remarks (“Page 7”) entry in his record. 

 
Later that same day, the applicant’s CO notified him by memorandum that he was initi-
ating his discharge under Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual because the  applicant had 
been arrested by local police twice in three months and thus brought discredit upon the Coast 
Guard.  The CO advised the applicant that he was recommending that he receive a general dis-
charge but that Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) would decide what type 
of discharge the applicant would receive.  He also advised the applicant of his right to consult an 
attorney and to submit a statement to object to the recommendation for discharge. 

 
The applicant signed an acknowledgement of the CO’s notification of discharge memo-
randum.  He acknowledged having been notified of his right to consult an attorney and to submit 
                                                 
1  In  Washington  State,  persons  may  be  found  guilty  of  driving  under  the  influence  (DUI)  if  their  blood  alcohol 
concentration (BAC) within two hours after driving is 0.08 or higher.  WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 46.61.502. (2009). 

a statement on his own behalf.  He acknowledged understanding that Commander, CGPC would 
decide whether he would be discharged and, if so, what type of discharge he would receive.  The 
applicant also acknowledged understanding that a general discharge would deprive him of many 
rights as a veteran and that he could “expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in 
situations where the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of 
discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.”  The applicant waived his right to consult a 
lawyer and stated that he would submit a statement on his own behalf.  The acknowledgment 
indicates that the applicant signed it voluntarily and “of [his] own free will.” 
 

In  his  statement  responding  to  the  CO’s  recommendation  for  discharge,  the  applicant 
asked to be retained on active duty because he enjoyed and took pride in his work.  He wrote, “I 
know what I did was wrong and am very sorry for my actions.”  He did not deny having com-
mitted the offenses for which he was arrested but attributed his actions to his alcohol consump-
tion.    The  applicant  stated  that  if  he  stopped  drinking  he  could  “have  a  long  and  prosperous 
career in the Coast Guard” and that he had an appointment with the command’s addiction repre-
sentative.  The applicant also stated that his “work performance pretty much speaks for itself.  I 
have met all my qualification requirements on time and am well on the way to being a 47 motor 
lifeboat engineer as well as a boarding team member.”  He asked for another chance to continue 
his career in the Coast Guard. 
 

On April 16, 2003, the applicant was advised on a Page 7 that he was “being placed on a 
six-month probation” and had to “show significant improvement in overcoming your tendencies 
to act immaturely.”  The Page 7 states that any further infractions would cause the CO to initiate 
his discharge for misconduct. 

 
The CO forwarded the discharge package2 to the CGPC through the Group Commander 
and the District Commander.  The CO wrote that the applicant’s job performance had been good 
but that he recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge because the applicant had 
been counseled about his conduct but “[t]hrough his actions he has tarnished the positive image 
that has taken so many honest and hard working Coast Guardsmen and women years to build.”  
The  CO  stated  that  he  would  have  recommended  that  the  applicant  receive  an  honorable  dis-
charge except that the applicant’s misconduct on April 15, 2003, occurred less than a month after 
he received NJP for his prior misconduct. 

 
On April 30, 2003, the Group Commander forwarded the discharge recommendation to 
the District Commander and agreed with the CO’s recommendation for a general discharge.  The 
Group Commander noted that the applicant had been charged by civil authorities with two mis-
demeanors  as a result of his actions on January  21, 2003, and with two  second class felonies 
(malicious mischief and theft) as a result of his actions on April 14, 2003 and that charges were 
pending for these offenses. 

 

                                                 
2 The date that the CO sent the discharge recommendation package to his chain of command is unclear.  Although 
his memorandum bears the date April 15, 2003, one of the enclosures listed on that memorandum is dated April 24, 
2003.  Therefore, it appears that the memorandum was drafted on April 15, 2003, but not completed and submitted 
until after April 24, 2003. 

On June 16, 2003, the District Commander forwarded the discharge package to CPGC 

and agreed with the CO’s recommendation for a general discharge for misconduct. 

 
On July 1, 2003, CGPC ordered that the applicant be discharged on July 30, 2003, with a 
general discharge for misconduct because of his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature 
with military and/or civilian authorities pursuant to Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
On July 15, 2003, the applicant’s command entered a Page 7 in his record noting that he 
had been diagnosed as alcohol dependent and recommended for out-patient rehabilitative treat-
ment.    The  Page  7  indicates  that  the  applicant  had  declined  treatment  and  acknowledged  that 
“[b]y doing so, you have waived all right to any future benefits under the Department of Veter-
ans Affairs program for treatment of chemical dependency.” 

 
On July 30, 2003, the applicant received a general discharge for misconduct with an RE-4 
reenlistment code (ineligible for reenlistment).  Block 24 of his DD 214 states that his character 
of service was “general.”3 

 
On April 23, 2004, the applicant asked the Discharge Review Board (DRB) to upgrade 
his discharge to honorable.  He denied having been charged with a crime and alleged that his CO 
had told him he would receive an honorable discharge.  On September 13, 2004, the DRB found 
that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  proper  and  equitable  and  recommended  that  his  request  be 
denied.  The Acting Commandant approved the DRB’s recommendation the same day.  On Sep-
tember 14, 2004, the applicant was notified of the decision and of his right to apply to the Board 
for Correction of Military Records for further consideration. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On September 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for untimeli-
ness and lack of merit.  In so doing, the JAG adopted the findings and analysis provided in a 
memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (CGPSC). 

 
CGPSC stated that the application was untimely because the applicant submitted it more 
than  three  years  after  his  application  to  the  DRB  was  denied  and  failed  to  justify  his  delay.  
CGPSC further stated that contrary to the applicant’s claim, his discreditable involvement within 
civilian and military authorities is substantiated in the record.  CGPSC also noted that the CO 
advised the applicant in the notification of discharge dated April 15, 2003, that he was recom-
mending that the applicant receive a general discharge. 

 
CGPSC  concluded  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  honorable  discharge  “is  not  sup-
ported by policy, precedence, or the interest of justice” and that he has failed to prove that his 
general discharge is erroneous or unjust. 

 

                                                 
3  Chapter  1.E.  of  the  manual  for  preparing  DD  214s,  COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  provides  that  the  “character  of 
service”  in  block  24  of  a  DD  214  shall  state  “under  honorable  conditions”  when  a  member  receives  a  general 
discharge. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 27, 2009, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He stated 
that after the DRB denied his request he did not promptly apply to this Board because he was 
shocked and disappointed by the DRB’s decision and consulted an attorney about his options. 
 
 
The applicant stated that the “incidents [he] was involved with [as] a young man in the 
Coast Guard have affected [his] ability to obtain a job with any civil service organization.”  He 
stated that he will be a registered emergency medical technician within a few months and needs 
just a few more credits to receive a degree in criminal justice but cannot get a job in any police or 
fire department because of the general discharge.  He alleged that it is unfair that he has been 
hamstrung by the Coast Guard.  In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted a letter 
from an officer of the Gwinnett County Police Department in Lawrenceville, Georgia, acknowl-
edging him as a “police candidate” but stating that the applicant’s “military history places you 
outside of our hiring guidelines and you are no longer being considered for the position.  The 
information discovered during your background investigation would prevent any future employ-
ment with our agency.” 
 
 
The applicant repeated his allegation that his CO had assured him he would get an honor-
able discharge and “had nothing to worry about.”  The applicant also alleged that he “was prom-
ised an RE code that would allow for reenlistment.” 

 
 
Article  12.B.18.b.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2003  states  that 
Commander, CGPC could direct the discharge of an enlisted member for misconduct because of 
the member’s “discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities,” established pattern 
of shirking, drug abuse, etc.  Article 12.B.18.a. states that the type of such a discharge may be 
honorable, general, or under other than honorable (OTH) conditions.  Article 12.B.18.c. states 
the following:   

 
Commanding officers must afford a member a reasonable probationary period to overcome defi-
ciencies  before  initiating  administrative  discharge  action  in  cases  of  frequent  discreditable 
involvement with civil or military authorities; …  If a command contemplates discharging a mem-
ber  for  reasons  contained  in  this  paragraph,  it  shall  counsel  the  member  a  formal  probation  or 
treatment  period  of  at  least  six  months  has  begun  and  make  an  appropriate  Administrative 
Remarks, CG-3307, entry in the member’s PDR stating the command will initiate administrative 
discharge processing unless the member shows significant improvement in overcoming the defi-
ciency during the probationary period.  The member must acknowledge the entry in writing.  … 
However,  commanding  officers  are  authorized  to  recommend  discharge  at  any  time  during  the 
probation if the member is not making an effort to overcome the deficiency.  …  Submit copies of 
all CG-3307 entries as an enclosure to the discharge  recommendation submitted to Commander, 
(CGPC-epm-1). 
 
Article 12.B.18.e. states that when initiating the honorable or general discharge for mis-
conduct of a member with less than eight years of military service, the commanding officer shall 
 

1. Inform the member in writing of the reason(s) for being considered for discharge (specifically 
state one or more of the reasons listed in [see] Article 12.B.18.b. supported by known facts). 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
2. Afford the member an opportunity to make a written statement.  If the member does not desire 
to do so, the commanding officer sets forth that fact in writing over the member’s signature.  If the 
member refuses to sign a statement his or her commanding officer will so state in writing. 
 
3.  Afford  the  member  an  opportunity  to  consult  with  a  lawyer  as  defined  by  Article  27(b)(1), 
UCMJ, if contemplating a general discharge.  If the member requests counsel and one is not avail-
able, the commanding officer must delay discharge proceedings until such time as counsel is avail-
able. 

 

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 after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant in this case  filed his  application more than 
three years after he knew or should have known of the alleged errors and more than three years 
after the decision of the DRB.4  Therefore, his application was not timely.  

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), 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 
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.”5 

The applicant alleged that he did not submit a timely application because he was 
in shock after receiving the decision of the Discharge Review Board.  This Board finds that the 
applicant’s explanation for his delay is not compelling. 

The applicant alleged that his general discharge was inequitable because his CO 
promised him an honorable discharge and bullied him into signing “separation papers” so that he 
could not “appeal” his CO’s recommendation.  A cursory review of the merits of the applicant’s 
allegations shows that they lack merit.  The CO clearly notified the applicant by memorandum 
on April 15, 2003, that he intended to recommend that the applicant receive a general discharge 
because  of  his  misconduct.    The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  this  notification  with  his 
signature.  There is no evidence supporting the applicant’s claim that his CO bullied him into 
signing any “separation papers.”  Moreover, the Coast Guard does not need the signed permis-
sion of a member to discharge him for misconduct.  In fact, the record shows that the applicant 
                                                 
4 Under Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1994), a BCMR application is considered timely 
if it is filed within 3 years of the decision of the DRB, which has a 15-year statute of limitations. 10 U.S.C. § 1551. 
5 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995).   

was afforded the right to consult counsel about the proposed general discharge, which he waived, 
and  to  rebut  his  CO’s  recommendation  for  a  general  discharge,  as  required  under  Article 
12.B.18.e. of the Personnel Manual.  Article 12.B.18.e. affords the member the right to object to 
a discharge and to submit a statement in rebuttal, as the applicant in fact did, not to “appeal” a 
CO’s  discharge  recommendation.    The  Board’s  review  shows  that  the  applicant  received  due 
process under Article 12.B.18.e. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  offenses  did  not  warrant  a  general  discharge  for 
misconduct with an RE-4 reenlistment code.  However, the preponderance of the evidence in the 
record indicates that during his year in the Coast Guard, the applicant committed the following 
offenses, which he did not deny at mast or in his rebuttal to the CO’s notification of discharge:  
attempting to steal a video from a store while carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, 
assaulting  a  crewmate,  and  removing  and  stealing  several  stop  signs  while  driving  under  the 
influence of alcohol.  Although the applicant now denies any involvement with civil authorities, 
an electronic database search of Washington State criminal records reveals that he was charged 
with carrying a weapon without a permit and with third degree theft on January 20, 2003, and 
that he was charged with an unstated offense on April 15, 2003.  Although the State charges were 
ultimately dropped, the Board finds that the applicant’s misconduct as described by his command 
was egregious and very dangerous to many other people.  He has not shown that his command’s 
characterization of his actions was erroneous.  The Board’s review indicates that the applicant’s 
general discharge with an RE-4 reenlistment code (ineligible to reenlist) was warranted. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

The applicant alleged that his general discharge is unjust because some police and 
fire departments have refused to hire him after performing a background investigation and dis-
covering his general discharge for misconduct.  The fact that the employment guidelines of some 
other  institutions  require  veterans  seeking  employment  to  have  honorable  discharges  does  not 
make the general discharges and other less than fully honorable discharges issued by the Coast 
Guard and other Armed Forces erroneous or unjust.6 

Although the applicant did not raise the issue, the Board’s cursory review of the 
merits of this case reveals one anomaly in the record:  Instead of placing him on performance 
probation following his first offenses in January 2003 or at the mast on March 19, 2003, the CO 
waited  until April  16,  2003—the  day  after  the  applicant  allegedly  removed  and  stole  the  stop 
signs—to  place  him  on  performance  probation,  as  required  for  a  misconduct  discharge  under 
Article 12.B.18.c. of the Personnel Manual.  However, Article 12.B.18.c. also states that a mem-
ber may be discharged for misconduct before the end of a probationary period “if the member is 
not making an effort to overcome the deficiency.”  The record shows that the applicant’s CO sub-
mitted his discharge recommendation up the chain of command before the end of the probation-
ary  period  without  addressing  this  issue.    Whether  the  CO  did  not  believe  the  applicant  was 
trying to overcome his deficiencies or whether he felt that the applicant’s offenses justified his 
discharge without a long probationary period is not documented in the record.  Nor was the issue 
addressed by the Group Commander or District Commander in their endorsements, and CGPC 
                                                 
6 For the purposes of the BCMRs, “‘[i]njustice’, when not also ‘error’, is treatment by the military authorities, that 
shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976).  
The Board has authority to determine whether an injustice exists on a “case-by-case basis.” Docket No. 2002-040 
(DOT BCMR, Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, Dec. 4, 2002). 

authorized the applicant’s discharge in the middle of the probationary period, as permitted under 
Article 12.B.18.c.  The Board finds insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the Coast 
Guard committed error or injustice by discharging the applicant before the end of his probation-
ary period. 

The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  honorable  discharge  cannot 
prevail on the merits.  Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or 
waive the statute of limitations with regard to his request for an upgraded discharge.  His request 
for an honorable discharge should be denied. 

The Board notes, however, that block 24 of the applicant’s DD 214 erroneously 
states that his character of service was “general.”  Chapter 1.E. of the manual for preparing DD 
214s,  COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  states  that  when  a  member  receives  a  general  discharge,  the 
character of service documented in block 24 of the DD 214 should be “under honorable condi-
tions.”  Therefore, the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected to show the phrase “under honor-
able conditions” in block 24. 
 
 
 
 

 
9. 

 
10 

 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military  record  is  denied,  except  that  his  DD  214  shall  be  corrected  to  show  the  character  of 
service as “under honorable conditions” in block 24. 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal