DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-176 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

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  application  upon  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s completed application on June 19, 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  March  11,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his general discharge 
under  honorable  conditions  (commonly  referred  to  as  a  general  discharge)  to  an  honorable 
discharge. The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 13, 1986, and was discharged 
under honorable conditions on September 4, 1992, by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.   

 
The applicant requested the upgrade of his discharge to honorable because he does not 
want a mistake he made as a foolish young person to hinder his hopes for a better future.  He 
stated that since his discharge, he has become an aviation maintenance technician, a pilot, and a 
flight instructor with 4000 hours of instruction.   

 
The applicant  did not provide a reason why it is in the interest of justice to waive the 

three-year statute of limitations in his case.     

 

 
 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 
On  October  21,  1986,  an  administrative  remarks  page  (Page  7)  was  entered  into  the 
applicant’s record documenting that he had been given a full explanation of the Coast Guard’s 
drug  and  alcohol  abuse  program  as  outline  in  Article  20-B-1  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Manual.   

 

On  April  29,  1992,  the  applicant  provided  a  urine  specimen  that  tested  positive  for 
marijuana.  The applicant’s commanding officer (CO) was notified on May 21, 1992, that the 
applicant’s specimen had tested positive for marijuana.   
 
 
On July 13, 1992, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) advised the applicant that the 
CO  was  recommending  that  the  Commandant  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard 
because his urine tested positive for marijuana.  The CO advised the applicant that it was the 
Commandant’s decision as to the type of discharge he would receive.  The applicant was advised 
in  writing  that  he  could  submit  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf,  that  he  could  object  to  the 
discharge, and that he had the right to consult with a lawyer.   
 
 
On  July  13,  1992,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  in  which  he  acknowledged  the 
proposed  discharge,  acknowledged  that  he  had  spoken  to  a  lawyer,  objected  to  the  discharge, 
attached a statement in his behalf, and acknowledged that a general discharge, if awarded, could 
be prejudicial to him in civilian life.  
 

In his written statement objecting to the discharge, the applicant stated that he joined the 
Coast Guard to get training and to make a life for his family.  However, soon after joining he and 
his wife separated.  He stated that after adjusting to the separation from his wife, he encountered 
problems being accepted for training in various rates because of problems with his eyesight.  He 
noted that he had been rejected for training in three rates.  The applicant stated that although he 
had  been  a  seaman  (pay  grade  E-3)  for  too  long,  he  was  proud  of  the  fact  that  he  always 
performed  beyond  expectations.    He  stated  that  with  all  of  his  personal  problems  and  career 
setbacks while in the Coast Guard, he did something really stupid, which he regretted and wished 
that he could have a second chance to make things right.  

 
On  July  17,  1992,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  (also 
know as captain’s mast) for the wrongful use of marijuana in violation of Article 112a of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice.   
 
 
On July 20, 1992, the CO recommended that the Commandant discharge the applicant 
from the Coast Guard due to a drug incident based upon the positive urine test for marijuana.  
The  CO  also  stated  that  the  applicant’s  positive  test  was  confirmed  by  a  second  test  of  the 
applicant’s urine sample.  The CO stated that the applicant had been an excellent worker and 
seaman and that prior to the drug incident, he was trusted highly by his superiors and peers.   
 
On August 12, 1992, the Commandant directed that the applicant be discharged with a 
 
general discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to involvement with 
drugs.   
 
 
 

On September 4, 1992, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard.   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  September  30,  2009,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Judge 
Advocate  General  (JAG),  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommending  that  the  applicant’s  request  be 

denied.  The JAG also adopted the facts and analysis provided by Commander Personnel Service 
Command (PSC) as a part of the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.  PSC noted that the application 
was untimely and that the applicant had not provided an explanation for his failure to file timely.  
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant was given a full explanation of the Coast Guard’s policy 
about drug abuse in 1986 and that the applicant had attended a mandatory training on drug and 
alcohol awareness and family advocacy on February 19, 1992.   
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant’s positive urine specimen for marijuana was the basis for his 
discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  due  to  a  drug  incident.    PSC  stated  that  under  Article 
12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual any member involved in a drug incident or the illegal, 
wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction  onto  military  installation  of 
any drug will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard with no higher than a general 
discharge.   
 

PSC also stated that the discharge was in accordance with Coast Guard policy and that 
the Coast Guard’s actions are presumptively correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary.   
 

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 1, 2009, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant for any 

 
 
response that he wanted to make.  The BCMR did not receive a response from the applicant. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
 

 

Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

Involvement with Drugs.  Any member involved in a drug incident or the illegal, 
wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction  onto  military 
installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard 
with no higher than a general discharge.   

Article  20.A.2.k.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  then  in  effect  defined  a  drug  incident  as 

follows: 
 
 Intentional drug abuse, wrongful possession of, or trafficking in drugs.  If the use 
occurs without a member’s knowledge, awareness, or reasonable suspicion or is 
medically authorized, it does not constitute a drug incident.  A civil or military 
conviction  for  wrongful  use,  possession,  etc.,  of  controlled  substances  is  prima 
facie evidence of a drug incident.  The member need not be found guilty at court-
martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded NJP for the behavior to be considered a 
drug incident.   

 
Article 20.C.1.b. places responsibility on COs for ensuring their unit’s compliance with 
 
the  Coast  Guard’s  Drug  Abuse  Program.  “Commanding  officers  shall  investigate  all 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of title  10  United 

 
 
submissions and military record, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
States Code.  
 
 
2. 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 discovered, the 
alleged error or injustice. The applicant knew or should have known at the time of his discharge 
in 1992 that he had received a discharge under honorable conditions because it is documented on 
his  DD  214  that  the  applicant  acknowledged  by  his  signature.  The  applicant  did  not  file  his 
application with the Board until June 5, 2009.  Therefore, the BCMR application is untimely by 
approximately fourteen years.   
  

circumstances  in  which  the  use  or  possession  of  drugs  appears  to  be  a  factor,  and  take 
appropriate administrative and disciplinary action. 
 

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 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 did not provide a reason for not filing his application within the required 

time period.   
 
 
5.  With respect to the merits based upon a cursory review, the applicant is not likely to 
prevail  on  his  application  for  an  upgrade  of  his  under  honorable  conditions  discharge.    The 
applicant  does  not  contest  that  his  urine  tested  positive  for  marijuana  or  that  the  positive 
urinalysis test constituted a drug incident. Article 20.A.2.k. of the Personnel Manual defines a 
drug incident as the intentional use of drugs, the wrongful possession of drugs, or the trafficking 
in drugs.  
 
 
6.    Under the Personnel Manual, an under honorable conditions discharge is appropriate 
for a discharge due to a drug incident.  Article12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual makes it 
clear that any member “involved in a drug incident or the illegal, wrongful, or improper sale, 
transfer, manufacture, or introduction onto military installation of any drug . . . will be processed 
for separation from the Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.”  The applicant was 
afforded  his  due  process  rights  prior  to  discharge  and  does  not  make  any  claim  that  he  was 
denied any such rights.  
 

7.    The  Board  notes  the  applicant’s  statement  that  he  encountered  some  personal 
problems  and  career  disappointments  that  led  him  to  do  “something  stupid.”    However,  the 
Board  notes  that  the  applicant  had  been  in  the  Service  for  approximately  five  years  when  he 
committed  the  drug  incident  and  should  have  known  better  or  should  have  been  aware  of 
available resources to assist him with resolving his challenges.  Therefore, the applicant has not 
made a persuasive case that his discharge is an injustice.   
 

 
8. Accordingly, the application should be denied because it is untimely and because the 

applicant is not likely to prevail on the merits of his claim.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied.