DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2009-214 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   

 

 
 

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 after receiving the 
applicant’s  completed  application  on  August  3,  2009,  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  April  22,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  separation  code  so  that  he  is  entitled  to 
transition assistance benefits.1  He alleged that he was told by YN1 W that he would be entitled 
to transition benefits, but he recently learned that TRICARE would not grant benefits to him.   
 
 
The  applicant  was  discharged  on  August  21,  2008,  after  serving  seven  years,  seven 
months, and 6 days on active duty.  He was discharged by reason of unsuitability with a JPD 
(alcohol rehabilitation failure) separation code and a RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment 
code.    He  alleged  that  the  JPD  separation  code  is  preventing  him  from  receiving  transition 
benefits.   
 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  January  16,  2001.    On  May  2,  2002,  an 
administrative entry (page 7) was placed in the applicant’s record documenting his first alcohol 
incident because he was found intoxicated at work.  The page 7 warned the applicant that any 
further  alcohol  incidents  or  underage  drinking  could  result  in  his  separation  from  the  Coast 
Guard.  The applicant was punished at captain’s mast for underage drinking on May 6, 2002.  He 
was referred to the command drug and alcohol representative (CDAR) for screening.   

                                                 
1   Transition benefits are certain programs and benefits provided to members who are involuntarily separated from 
the service with a qualifying separation code to assist the member and family in making a smooth transition from 
military to civilian life.   

 
 
The applicant attended the “Alcohol and Drug Impact Education” program from August 
6, 2002, to August 8, 2002.  This education consisted of films, lectures and discussion groups on 
the subjects of alcohol, drug abuse, alcoholism, decision-making, group interaction, individual 
counseling, and study of recovery related literature. The applicant was also required to attend at 
least one AA meeting.  A page 7 states that the applicant was deemed not to be alcohol dependent 
or abusive. 
 
 
A July 21, 2003 page 7 documented several instances in which the applicant’s behavior 
was  not  acceptable  due  to  his  alcohol  consumption.    On  this  same  date,  the  applicant  in  a 
drunken state entered  a  room at a hotel where  minors were consuming alcohol and had to be 
assisted back to his room by police officers who had arrived earlier.  The page 7 also notes that 
earlier  on  January  20,  2003,  alcohol  was  involved  in  an  altercation  the  applicant  had  with 
civilians  while  on  liberty.    On  May  18,  2003,  alcohol  was  also  involved  in  the  applicant’s 
placement on report for damaging government property and for conduct prejudicial to good order 
and discipline by engaging in an altercation with civilians.    
 
 
On  November  20,  2003,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  military  psychiatrist.  The 
psychiatrist  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  abusing  alcohol  and  recommended  that  the  applicant 
return  to  his  command  and  that  the  CDAR  monitor  him.    The  psychiatrists  noted  that  the 
applicant last took a drink of alcohol on July 21, 2003.   
 
 
On May 7, 2008, a page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record documenting a second 
alcohol incident.  The page 7 noted that the applicant was absent from quarters because he was in 
his rack drunk.  The page 7 also noted that the applicant had driven his automobile while under 
the  influence  of  alcohol.    The  applicant  was  informed  on  the  page  7  that  since  this  was  his 
second alcohol incident he would be processed for discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
On July 25, 2008, the applicant was punished at captain’s mast for operating a vehicle 
while  drunk,  for  being  drunk  on  duty,  and  for  being  incapacitated  for  duty  due  to  wrongful 
indulgence of alcohol.     
 
 
From  June  9,  2008  to June  20,  2008,  the  applicant  was  treated  as  an  outpatient  in  the 
substance abuse rehabilitation program at a naval hospital.  Upon release from the program, the 
applicant’s aftercare plan included abstaining from alcoholic beverages for the first 90 days after 
completing treatment, meeting with the CDAR on a weekly basis for 90 days, and participating 
in a twelve-step, abstinence-based group support program at least twice weekly for 90 days.  The 
applicant’s after care plan also included the following: 
 

“If  a  decision  is  made  to  drink  after  90  days,  remain  within  the  guidelines  for 
moderate drinking of two standard drinks per day for a total of fourteen drinks per 
week.  Consume no more than four drinks per 24 hour period and consume each 
drink over a least a thirty-minute period.  No drinking and driving.”     

 

 
On July 3, 2008, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) advised the applicant that he 
was recommending his separation from the Coast Guard for unsuitability due to alcohol abuse.  
The CO noted the two alcohol incidents in May 2002 and May 2008.   
 
 
The CO advised the applicant that he could submit a statement in his behalf; that he could 
disagree with the discharge recommendation in a rebuttal that would be forwarded with the CO’s 
recommendation; and that he could consult with a lawyer.   
 
 
The  applicant  acknowledged  the  proposed  discharge,  acknowledged  that  he  could 
encounter some prejudice if he were to receive a general discharge, acknowledged that he was 
provided with the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, and elected to submit a statement on his 
own behalf.   
 
 
In his statement, the applicant noted his military awards and performance.  He noted that 
he  had  completed  alcohol  treatment  and  that  he  was  willing  to  undergo  further  treatment,  if 
necessary.  He stated that due to the training he had already received, it was in the Coast Guard 
interest to keep him on active duty.  He asked to remain in the service.   
 
 
On July 3, 2008, the CO recommended to Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC) that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability due to 
alcohol abuse.  He noted the applicant’s two alcohol incidents.  The CO did not recommend the 
applicant for the second chance program.  
 

On July 24, 2008, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge  from the Coast Guard by 
reason of unsuitability due to drug abuse under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  CGPC 
assigned “JPD” as the separation code and RE-4 as the reenlistment code.   

 
The applicant was discharged on August 21, 2008.    

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 10, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    The  JAG 
adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC)  and 
asked  that  PSC’s  comments  be  accepted  as  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion.  PSC 
recommended that the application be denied and stated the following:   
 

According to [Article 20.B.2.h.of the Personnel Manual] policy reads that enlisted 
members  involved  in  a  second  alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for 
separation in accordance with [Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual].  The 
corresponding  SPD  code  for  members  being  separated  for  a  second  alcohol 
incident 
is  JPD,  narrative  reason  “Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure”  with 
explanation  for  its  intended  application  as,  “Involuntary  discharge.”    This  is 
directed  by  established  directive  (no  board  entitlement)  when  a  member  failed 
through  inability  or  refusal  to  participate  in,  cooperate  in,  or  successfully 
complete a treatment program for alcohol rehabilitation.  Thus, JPD would be the 

correct code for the applicant in this case.  The only associated reentry code for 
JPD is RE-4.   
 
According to [the applicant’s standard travel orders], in the remarks section, [it] 
indicates “MBR is not entitled to transition assistance benefits:  Separation Code 
JPD.”    
 
PSC stated that any problem the applicant has with TRICARE is beyond the purview of 
 
the Coast Guard and should be addressed with TRICARE.  Finally, the JAG stated that the Coast 
Guard is presumptively correct, and the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice 
with regards to his record.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  December  11,  2009,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  view  of  the  Coast 
 
Guard and allotted him thirty days to submit a reply.   The BCMR did not receive a response 
from the Applicant.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  20.A.2.b.  states  that  alcohol  abuse  is  a  general  term  for  the  misuse  of  alcohol 
which  interferes  with  the  user's  health,  safety,  job  performance,  family  life,  or  other  required 
social adaptation.   
 
 
Article  20.A.2.c.  defines  alcohol  dependence  as  a  chronic  disease  characterized  by 
repetitive,  compulsive  ingestion  of  alcohol  which  interferes  with  the  user's  health,  safety,  job 
performance,  family  life,  or  other  required  social  adaptation.    The  Health  Promotions  Manual 
(COMDTINST M6200.1) contains the criteria to establish a diagnosis of alcohol dependence and 
alcohol abuse.   
 
 
Article  20.A.2.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  defines  Alcohol  Incident  as  follows:    "Any 
behavior,  in  which  alcohol  is  determined,  by  the  commanding  officer,  to  be  a  significant  or 
causative factor, that results in the member's loss of ability to perform assigned duties, brings 
discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ), Federal, State, or local laws.  The member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in 
a  civilian  court,  or  be  awarded  non-judicial  punishment  for  the  behavior  to  be  considered  an 
alcohol incident."  This provision further states, "The member must actually consume alcohol for 
an alcohol incident to have occurred." 
 
 
Article 20.B.2.g. states that upon the first alcohol incident an enlisted member shall be 
counseled and a page 7 documenting the counseling shall be placed in the member's PDR, with 
the  member's  written  acknowledgement.    The  counseling  should  include  advice  on  the  Coast 
Guard policy on alcohol abuse and a warning that a subsequent incident normally will result in 
separation action.   

Article 20.B.2.i. states that enlisted members involved in a third alcohol incident shall be 

  
 
Article 20.B.2.h.2. states that enlisted members involved in a second alcohol incident will 
normally  be  processed  for  separation  in  accordance  with  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual (unsuitability).  
 
 
processed for separation from the Coast Guard under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
Article 20-B-2k. states that with respect to unsuccessful treatment, members refusing to 
undergo  the  treatment  deemed  necessary  by  the  commanding  officer,  failing  to  complete  this 
treatment,  or  violating  an  alcohol  rehabilitation  aftercare  plan  will  normally  be  processed  for 
separation.  
 
 
Article 20-B-2l. states that members diagnosed as alcohol dependent must abstain from 
alcohol use in order to maintain sobriety  . . . A second episode of alcohol consumption after 
completion of an aftercare program by members who have been diagnosed as alcohol dependent 
will result in separation from the Coast Guard. 
 
 
Article 20-B-3d. states that "the commanding officer shall advise members in writing of 
the following prior to treatment: . . .  (2)  Successfully completing a treatment program after one 
alcohol incident will allow the member to continue a career in the Coast Guard.  Members . . . 
violating  an  alcohol  rehabilitation  aftercare  plan  normally  will  be  separated  from  the  Coast 
Guard." 

Health Promotions Manual (COMDTINST M6200.1)  
 

Chapter 2.A.1. states that the purpose of Chapter 2 of the Manual is to set the policy and 

procedures for the Coast Guard Addictions Treatment and Prevention Programs.   
 

Chapter C.31. of the instruction defines rehabilitation as the restoration to a normal or 
optimum  state  of  health  and  constructive  activity  by  medical  treatment,  physical  and/or 
psychological therapy.   
 

Chapter  F.1.  states,  "Any  member  involved  in  an  alcohol  incident  or  situation  where 
treatment is not recommended should attend an alcohol awareness education program such as the 
20-hour  Navy  PREVENT  or  Coast  Guard  SAFE  Alcohol-IMPACT  course,  or  community 
sponsored program." 
 

Chapter J.4. defines rehabilitation failure as follows:  "A rehabilitation failure occurred 
when  a  member  does  not  complete  an  alcohol  rehabilitation  program  or  aftercare  plan  due  to 
noncompliance, or has an alcohol incident during a rehabilitation or aftercare program." 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

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

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 

 
2.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged from the Coast Guard on August 21, 2008 
by reason of unsuitability due to alcohol abuse (two alcohol incidents).  He is requesting that his 
JPD (alcohol rehabilitation failure) separation code be changed so that he is eligible for transition 
assistance benefits.  Pursuant to Enclosure (4) to COMDTINST 1900.2A, a JPD separation code 
disqualifies a member from receiving transition benefits.   The applicant alleged that a YN1 at 
his unit told him that he would be entitled to transition assistance benefits, but TRICARE denied 
his request for medical care after his discharge from the Coast Guard.  
 
 
3. Article 20.B.2.h.2. states that enlisted members involved in a second alcohol incident 
will normally be processed for separation in accordance with Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel 
Manual (unsuitability). Therefore, the Coast Guard acted within the authority of Chapter 20 of 
the Personnel manual by discharging the applicant after his second documented alcohol incident.  
There is no dispute in the record that the applicant had two alcohol incidents that interfered with 
the applicant's performance of his duties. The Board notes that when the applicant was informed 
that  he  was  being  processed  for  separation,  he  was  told  that  the  basis  for  his  separation  was 
unsuitability due to alcohol abuse based on the two alcohol incidents. 
 

4.  Since the basis for the discharge—alcohol abuse based upon two alcohol incidents–
was proper, the issue in this case is whether the JPD separation code listed on the applicant's DD 
214 accurately and fairly describes the reason for his separation.  Chapter 1.D.2. of the DD 214 
instruction states that the DD 214 must be accurate and complete to fulfill the purposes for which 
it  was  designed.  Subsection  4.a.  of  the  instruction  states  that  the  DD  214  is  an  authoritative 
source  of  information  for  both  governmental  agencies  and  the  armed  forces  for  purposes  of 
employment, benefits, and reenlistment eligibility.   

  
5. Based upon a review of the authorities pertinent to the issue of rehabilitation failure, 
coding the applicant’s separation as alcohol rehabilitation failure was erroneous.  According to 
the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook, the JPD (rehabilitation failure) separation 
code is assigned when a member failed through inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, 
or successfully complete a treatment program for alcohol rehabilitation. Article 20.B.2.k of the 
Personnel  Manual  defines  unsuccessful  treatment  as  refusing  to  undergo  the  treatment  the 
commanding officer  and competent medical authority deem necessary, failing to complete the 
treatment, or violating an alcohol rehabilitation aftercare plan.  Chapter J.4. of the Coast Guard 
Health  Promotions  Manual  defines  rehabilitation  failure  as  follows:    "A  rehabilitation  failure 
occurred when a member does not complete an alcohol rehabilitation program or aftercare plan 
due to noncompliance, or has an alcohol incident during a rehabilitation or aftercare program."  
The record shows that after his first alcohol incident, the applicant successfully completed the 20 
hour  “alcohol  and  drug-IMPACT  education”  program  and  according  to  a  page  7  he  was  not 
considered to be alcohol dependent or abusive.  There is no documentation in the military record 
that the applicant was provided with an aftercare plan upon completing the IMPACT education 

program.2  Although the applicant was screened for and diagnosed with alcohol abuse on July 
21, 2003, he was not referred for treatment.   Instead he was sent back  to his command to be 
monitored  by  the  CDAR.    Approximately  five  years  later  the  applicant  had  had  a  second 
documented  alcohol  incident  on  May  5,  2008,  and  he  was  referred  to  and  participated  in  an 
outpatient  substance  abuse  rehabilitation  program  from  June  9-20,  2008.  No  judgment  can  be 
made  about  his  success  with  respect  to  this  treatment  and  aftercare  plan  because  he  was 
discharged  on  August  21,  2008  approximately  two  months  after  completing  the  outpatient 
program.    The  record  before  the  Board  does  not  support  an  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure 
separation code.  The applicant’s situation does not meet the SPD Handbook’s explanation for 
the  JPD  code,  the  Personnel  Manual’s  definition  of  unsuccessful  treatment,  or  the  Health 
Promotions Manual’s definition of rehabilitation failure.    
 
  
6.    Since  the  JPD  separation  code  is  erroneous,  the  Board  must  determine  what 
corrections to the applicant’s record are necessary to correct this error and/or injustice.    The 
separation codes used in Block 26 of the DD 214 are taken from a comprehensive listing in the 
SPD  Handbook.    After  reviewing  the  SPD  Handbook,  it  appears  that  YPA  (personal  alcohol 
abuse) is the only other alcohol-related separation code.  The SPD Handbook states that YPA is 
appropriate when a member is "[released] from custody and control of a Service component by 
virtue of a void enlistment or induction, when there is a personal abuse of alcohol evidenced by 
the results of an approved testing procedure for identification of alcohol abusers . . . "   Since the 
applicant’s  enlistment  was  not  a  void  enlistment,  YPA  would  be  even  more  inaccurate  and 
prejudicial than the JPD code.   
 
 
7.   The only just resolution for the instant situation is to follow the precedent in BCMR 
Docket No. 2000-127.  The applicant in that case also received an alcohol rehabilitation failure 
separation code, even though he had not refused to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully 
complete any rehabilitation program.  The Deputy General Counsel approved the Board’s final 
decision directing that the applicant’s record be corrected to show that he was discharged due to 
miscellaneous/general reasons, under Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual (convenience of 
the government), and with a JND (miscellaneous/general reasons) separation code.    
 
 
8.  The Board is not addressing the issue of the applicant’s reenlistment code because he 
has not raised it.  In this regard, the Board would note that although the applicant had over seven 
years of active duty and was an average to above average performer, the RE-4 reenlistment code 
appears justified.  In this regard, the Board notes that the applicant was provided with resources 
to manage his alcohol abuse and provided leniency by not having his July 2003 incident declared 
as an alcohol incident.  Despite the efforts of the Coast Guard, the applicant committed a second 
documented alcohol incident and was punished at captain’s mast for driving while drunk and for 
being incapacitated for duty due to the consumption of alcohol.   
 
 
9.  Accordingly, the applicant has shown that the Coast Guard committed an error and/or 
injustice by coding the reason for his separation as alcohol rehabilitation failure and he is entitled 
to relief.  The Board notes that since January 2002 it has called to the Coast Guard’s attention the 
problem of having adequate separation codes that accurately reflect situations where members 
                                                 
2  According to Chapter 2.C.32 of the Coast Guard Health Promotions Manual, the SAFE IMPACT course is not 
treatment, but it is the first educational intervention toward the treatment continuum.” 

are discharged because of two or more alcohol incidents.  The Board recommends that the Coast 
Guard consider revising the SPD Handbook to address this situation.   
   
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXX, for the correction of his military record is 

granted.  His DD 214 shall be corrected in the following manner: 

 
Block  25  shall  be  corrected  to  show Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  as  the 

separation authority. 

 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show JND as the separation code. 
 
Block 28 shall be corrected to show “separation for miscellaneous/general reasons” as the 

narrative reason for separation. 

 
The Coast Guard shall issue a new DD Form 214 to the applicant with these corrections.  

Block 18 may be corrected to state, “Action taken as result of BCMR.” 
 

No other relief is granted.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

                     

 

    

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

   
 
 Adrian Sevier