DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-246 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 

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 
completed application September 3, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare 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  June  16,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant received an “uncharacterized” discharge on June 29, 1988, which was his 
17th day of basic training.  His DD 214 shows that his discharge was an “entry level separation”  
with a JGA separation code and an RE-3L reenlistment code.  He asked the Board to correct his 
discharge from uncharacterized to honorable, to upgrade his reenlistment code to RE-1, and to 
upgrade his separation code to something more appropriate. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that during his induction he was asked to fill out many forms, and 
he did so honestly.  On one such form, he alleged, he admitted that he had drunk two six-packs of 
beer in a day.  However, he alleged, he had only done so in the days leading up to his enlistment.  
Nevertheless, he was soon told that he was going to be discharged because of his alcohol con-
sumption.  He was told that there was nothing he could do about the discharge but that he would 
be able to reenlist. 
 
 
The applicant stated that recently he was discussing his experience with a retired member 
of the Coast Guard, who asked to see his DD 124.  Upon inquiry, he learned that his separation 
code,  JGA,  indicates  that  there  was  a  problem  with  his  conduct  or  performance  during  basic 
training, “which was not the case.”  The applicant alleged that he got into no trouble at all during 
basic training and was discharged simply because of his answer to a question about how much 
alcohol he drank.  The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD 214 because it erroneously 
indicates the reason for his discharge. 

 
 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the errors in his record on June 1, 2009, when he 
learned  the  meaning  of  the  codes,  and  that  the  Board  should  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  his 
application  because  he  was  never  told  what  the  codes  on  his  DD  214  meant  and  so  he  never 
knew that they have undesirable definitions. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On January 19, 1988, at age 17, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve under 
the delayed entry program.  He reported for basic training on June 13, 1988.  During a physical 
examination on June 15, 1988, the applicant was asked about his alcohol ingestion.  The doctor 
noted his answer as “frequently—2-3 cans/day x 7 months.”  The examining physician’s assistant 
found him not qualified for basic training.  The applicant signed a statement indicating that he 
did not give the medical staff permission to share his medical information with his parents. 

 
On June 17, 1988, a medical board of doctors reviewed the applicant’s case, diagnosed 
him as alcohol abusive, noted that his condition was not a physical disability, and recommended 
that he be discharged pursuant to Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual with an RE-3 reenlist-
ment code.  The narrative summary of the medical findings states that during a medical inter-
view, the applicant  
 

stated he required 2-3 cans of beer a day in order to function, stating he needed alcohol daily.  He 
stated he drank beer at breakfast-time, on getting up, as well as other times during the day, some-
times as often as 7 beers a day.  These 7 beers were spaced over the course of the day but were 
required.   Accordingly,  he  was  referred  to  Red Tag  Review  for  further  inquiry  into  his  alcohol 
usage.  At Red Tag, it was obvious that the use of 7 cans of beer a day did not impress this recruit 
as an indication of a possible alcohol problem.  He was, therefore, referred to the Medical Board 
for an evaluation. 

 

 

On June 20, 1988, the applicant was advised of the finding and recommendation of the 

medical board.  He signed a form indicating that he did not want to submit a rebuttal statement. 

 
On June 29, 1988, the applicant received an uncharacterized discharge, pursuant to Arti-
cle 12-B-20 of the Personnel Manual, with a JGA separation code1 and an RE-3L reenlistment 
code.2  The applicant signed his DD 214 with this information.  There is no documentation of 
misconduct in his record. 
 

   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 12, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 

 
 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   
 

                                                 
1  Under  COMDTINST  M1900.4B,  the  JGA  separation  code  denoted  an  “entry  level  separation  –  performance, 
conduct or adaptability deficiencies” authorized by the CO of the training center. 
2  An  RE-3L  reenlistment  code  indicates  that  a  member  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  the  fact  that  the 
member has already undergone one entry-level separation and therefore needs a waiver to reenlist. 

 
The JAG stated that the application was not timely filed because the applicant knew that 
he had received an uncharacterized discharge in 1988.  The JAG argued that the applicant has not 
submitted any relevant documentation to support his request for relief.  Therefore, he stated, the 
case should be denied for untimeliness and lack of merit.  
 

The JAG adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum by the 
Coast Guard Personnel Service Command (PSC).  The PSC stated that the commanding officer 
(CO) of the training center was authorized to discharge recruits and that the applicant’s adminis-
trative discharge was processed correctly because he had “satisfied the conditions for an unchar-
acterized discharge” under Article 12.B.20.  Therefore, the PSC argued, the applicant has failed 
to substantiate any error or injustice with respect to his discharge. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  January  27,  2010,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard.    The 
 
applicant stated that because he was discharged at age 17, he was unaware of the importance and 
ramifications of what was happening.  The applicant admitted that he used alcohol but denied 
that he had “required” alcohol, as stated in the medical board’s report.  He stated that he had sim-
ply admitted to what he had drunk “in the week leading up to the time of training in ‘parties’ and 
such.”  Therefore, he alleged, it was wrong for the Coast Guard to conclude that he had a drink-
ing problem.  The applicant noted that he was not treated for withdrawal symptoms and further 
stated that although he was told that he was being discharged for alcohol abuse, no one told him 
that they thought that he required alcohol or that they thought it was a long-standing problem. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1988, the Commandant could 
authorize the separation of an enlisted member due to “erroneous enlistment” if the member had 
a condition that was not a physical disability but that interfered with the member’s performance 
of duty.  The RE codes authorized for such separations were RE-3G (eligible to reenlist with a 
waiver) or an RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist). 
 
 
Under Article 12-B-20.a., the CO of the training center could authorize the “uncharacter-
ized discharges” of members with less than 180 days of active duty who had demonstrated “poor 
proficiency, conduct, aptitude, or unsuitability for further service during the period from enlist-
ment  through  recruit  training.”   Article  12-B-20.e.  stated  that  “[a]n  uncharacterized  discharge 
will  be  used  for  most  recruit  separations,  other  than  for  disability,  or  prior  service  personnel 
entering recruit training.”  According to the COMDTINST M1900.4B, the only separation and 
reenlistment  codes  authorized  for  an  “entry-level  separation”  under Article  12-B-20  were  the 
JGA and the RE-3L. 
 

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 clearly knew that he had received an unchar-
acterized discharge in 1988 since he signed the DD 214.  Therefore, his request for an honorable 
discharge is untimely.  The applicant alleged that he did not understand the meaning of the sepa-
ration  and  reenlistment  codes  on  his  DD  214,  but  he  admitted  that  he  was  advised  about  his 
reenlistment  eligibility  and  about  the  reason  for  his  separation  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.  
Therefore, the Board finds that his requests regarding his reenlistment code and separation code 
are also untimely.   

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

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.”    Id.  at  164-65;  see  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).  

The applicant alleged that his military records are erroneous and unjust and that 
he should have  received an honorable discharge, an RE-1 reenlistment code, and a separation 
code  that  does  not  reflect  a  problem  with  his  performance  or  conduct.    Under  the  Personnel 
Manual  and  the  manual  for  preparing  DD  214s  (COMDTINST  M1900.4B)  in  effect  in  1988, 
however, new recruits who were deemed unsuitable for service received an uncharacterized dis-
charge with a JGA separation code and an RE-3L reenlistment code.  The record shows that soon 
after reporting for basic training, the applicant advised medical personnel at the training center 
that he required two to three cans of beer a day in order to function even though he was then just 
17  years  old.   A  medical  board  of  physicians  recommended  that  he  be  discharged.    The  CO 
apparently  agreed  that  the  applicant’s  daily  alcohol  consumption  rendered  him  unsuitable  for 
military service and discharged him in accordance with the regulations.  Although the applicant 
now denies having told anyone that he needed beer everyday in order to function, his military 
medical records are presumptively correct and he has not submitted evidence to support his alle-
gations of error or injustice.  In light of the medical board’s report, the Board is not persuaded 
that  the  applicant’s  uncharacterized  discharge  with  a  JGA  separation  code  and  an  RE-3L 
reenlistment code is erroneous or unjust.   

The Board notes that although the applicant alleged that the JGA denotes a dis-
charge due to performance or conduct problems, the actual meaning of the JGA code was much 
broader and included recruits who were deemed unsuitable or unadaptable for military service.  
In addition, the RE-3L code does not mean that the applicant is ineligible to reenlist; it means 
that he is eligible to reenlist but would need a waiver because of his prior entry-level separation. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because of the untimeliness 

of the application and the lack of merit in his claims. 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
  

 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

                     

 

    

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

   
 Kathryn Sinniger