DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

  

_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for Correction           
of the Coast Guard Record of:                     
                                         
                                                                                       BCMR Docket No. 2009-148 
                                                                               
XXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                              
XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  

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 upon receipt of the applicant's 
completed  application  on  May  18,  2009,  and  subsequently  prepared  the  final  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  January  28,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD 214 (certificate of discharge from active 
duty) record by adding the words “completion of initial service honorably.”  The applicant began 
a  two-year  period  of  active  duty  on  November  2,  1999.    Through  a  series  of  extension 
agreements, he extended his enlistment for a total of four years and five months, which would 
have amounted to a total of six years and five months of active duty if it had all been served.  
However, on December 19, 2005, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under 
honorable conditions, by reason of misconduct, with a JKN1 separation code and an RE-4 (not 
eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code.  At the time of his discharge, the applicant had served six 
years, one month, and eighteen days on active duty.     
 
 
In  the  remarks  section  of  the  DD  214  it  states,  “MGIB  INFO:    MEMBER’S  INITIAL 
SERVICE CONTRACT WAS FOR FOUR YEARS.”  The applicant argues that if he had been 
allowed  to  remain  on  active  duty  and  to complete the total number of years he had agreed to 
under his enlistment and extension agreements, he would have been honorably discharged and 
therefore he would be able to use his MGIB benefits “in which I paid into.”  He further stated, “I 
most respectfully request these documents be reviewed, my DD 214 be amended and allow my 
GI benefits to be granted to me.” 
 
                                                 
1   A JKN separation code is assigned to a member whose involuntary discharge is directed by established directive 
when the member has established a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor disciplinary infractions.  
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook.   

  

PERTINENT EXCEPTS FROM APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 

On November 1, 2005, the applicant acknowledged the notification to discharge him and 

 
On November 1, 2005, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant 
that he was recommending that the commandant discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard 
with  a  general  discharge  due  to  misconduct.    The  applicant  was  convicted  at  a  special  court-
martial  of  being  an  accessory  after  the  fact,  making  a  false  official  statement,  counterfeiting 
United States currency, passing counterfeit United States currency, and making a false statement 
to a federal investigator, all violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The CO 
told  the  applicant  that  due  to  the  serious  nature  of  the  offenses,  he  was  initiating  the 
administrative  discharge  without  a  probationary  period.    The  applicant  was  informed  that  he 
could  submit  a  written  statement  in  his  own  behalf,  that  he  could  disagree  with  the  CO’s 
recommendation and his rebuttal would be forwarded with the discharge recommendation, and 
that he could consult with a lawyer.   
 
 
requested an opportunity to consult with military counsel.   
 
 
The applicant submitted an undated letter in response to the proposed discharge in which 
he  requested  an  honorable  discharge  and  a  RE-1  (eligible  for  reenlistment)  reenlistment  code.  
The applicant stated in his letter that other than the court-martial, he had no other disciplinary 
actions during the six years he had been in the Coast Guard.  He noted the good he had done by 
assisting  with  youth  sports,  volunteering  to  participate  in  various  education  programs, 
participating  in  Habitat  for  Humanity  projects, and installing new play ground equipment at a 
local  academy.      The  applicant  stated  that  he  needed  an  honorable  discharge  so that he could 
retain his MGIB benefits.  He also requested an RE-1 reenlistment code so that he could serve in 
the military again.   
 
 
On  November  7,  2005,  the  CO  asked  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) to discharge the applicant by reason on misconduct due to his conviction at a special 
court-martial.  The CO stated that due to the seriousness of the offenses of which the applicant 
was convicted, he should be discharged with a general discharge.  The CO stated that he did not 
desire to retain the applicant until his scheduled end of enlistment on April 1, 2006 because of 
the administrative and managerial burden such retention would create.   
 
 
On November 18, 2005, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard 
with a general discharge by reason of misconduct.  CGPC directed that the applicant be assigned 
separation code JKN.  The applicant was discharged on December 19, 2005.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 28, 2009, the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of the Judge 
 
Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard.  The JAG concurred with the comments provided 
by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC), which were attached as an enclosure to the 
advisory opinion.  
 

  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 
PSC  recommended  that  the  applicant’s  request  be  denied  because  COMDTINST 
M1900.4D  does  not  contain  a  provision  for  including  language  on  a  DD  214  such  as  that 
requested by the applicant.  
 
 
PSC recommended correcting two other errors on the DD 214, with the consent of the 
applicant.  In this regard, PSC stated that item 24 (character of discharge) on the DD 214 should 
read under honorable conditions rather than general discharge; and item 25 (separation authority) 
should read “COMDTINST M1000.6 ART 12-B-16” rather than “COMDTINST M1000.6 ART-
12-C-5.”2 
 
 
should contact the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Coast Guard’s MGIB liaison.   
 

PSC stated that if the applicant had questions regarding his eligibility for the MGIB, he 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  July  29,  2009,  the  Board  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  and 

 
 
invited him to submit a reply.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.    
 

2. 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions 

 
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law. 
 
 
States Code.  The application was not timely.  
 

1.  The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United 

Under 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  discovered,  the  alleged  error  or 
injustice.   The  applicant  did  not  provided  a  date  on  which  he  discovered  the  alleged  error  or 
injustice, but he should have discovered it on December 19, 2005 the date of his discharge.  The 
language he seeks to have added to the DD 214 was not on the document when he received it.  If 
the applicant believed information was not included on his DD 214, he should have raised the 
issue  at  that  time.    The  applicant’s  application  was  submitted  four  months  past  the  statute  of 
limitations.   

 
3.    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 
                                                 
2   On January 4, 2010, the Board received a DD 149 from the applicant requesting an upgrade of his discharge and 
reenlistment code.  The applicant exhausted his administrative remedy by applying to the DRB, which denied his 
request for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions and his request for an upgrade of his 
reenlistment code on June 2, 2009.  However, the DRB informed the applicant that it had corrected his DD 214 to 
describe his character of service as “under honorable conditions” instead of “general” and to show the separation 
authority as Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual instead of Article 12-C-5.    Therefore, it is not necessary for 
the Board to address the two administrative errors noted by PSC.   

  

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 the merits of this case, the applicant is not likely to prevail because 
DD 214s are prepared according to COMDTINST M1900.4D, which does not authorize adding 
the language requested by the applicant to the DD 214.  The instruction provides the following 
direction  with  regard  to  the  MGIB  information  in  Block  18:    “Enter  the  following  statement 
inserting  the  appropriate  number  of  years  as  shown:    ‘MGIB  INFO:  MEMBER’S  INITIAL 
SERVICE  CONTRACT  WAS  FOR (NUMBER OF YEARS)’” Therefore, the applicant’s DD 
214 with regard to this element is correct. Additionally, adding the phrase “completion of initial 
service  honorably”  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  discharge  awarded  to  the 
applicant.  Further, the DD 214 already shows in other areas that the applicant completed more 
than his initial four year obligation because it credits him with six years, one month, and eighteen 
days of active duty.  The reasons for the applicant’s non-receipt of MGIB benefits is more than 
likely his general discharge under honorable conditions due to misconduct.   
 
 
214 should be denied because it is untimely and lacks merit.   
 
6.    On  January  4,  2010,  the  Board  received  a  new  DD  149  from  the  applicant 
 
requesting  that  his  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  be  upgraded  to 
honorable and his reenlistment code be upgraded to RE-1.  The applicant has exhausted 
his  administrative  remedy  with  the  DRB,  which  denied  upgrading  his  discharge  and 
reenlistment code on June 2, 2009. The Board has treated this recently received request as a 
new application to be decided at a later date.    
 
 

5.  Accordingly, the applicant's request with regard to adding certain language to his DD 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 

ORDER 

  

 
 

 
 
is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn