DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2010-026 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 November 4, 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).  

 
This  final  decision,  dated  August  12,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant,  who  received  an  honorable  discharge  due  to  inaptitude  on  October  17, 
2007, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was discharged for “miscellaneous/ 
general reasons,” instead of inaptitude.  The applicant also asked the Board to correct his separa-
tion code, JNC, which means “Unacceptable Conduct,” and his reenlistment code, RE-4, which 
makes him ineligible for reenlistment.  In addition, the applicant asked that the record of his non-
judicial  punishment  (NJP)  dated  February  12,  2007,  and  a  special  performance  evaluation  he 
received  as  a  result  of  the  mast  be  removed  from  his  record  and  that  he  be  awarded  the  Good 
Conduct Medal he was denied because of the mast. 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  narrative  reason  for  his  discharge,  “Inaptitude,”  is  incon-
sistent with his actual performance on active duty.  He stated that during boot camp, he received 
the  Seamanship  Award,  the  Academic  Award,  and  was  one  point  away  from  being  the  Honor 
Graduate.  At FS “A” School, he was the Assistant Class Leader.  At his first assignment aboard 
the USCGC XXXX, he advanced to FS3 in October 2004 and to FS2 in January 2006.  In addi-
tion, he received a Letter of Commendation (LOC) from the captain of the XXXX. 
 

The applicant alleged that after advancing to FS2, he requested independent duty and was 
assigned to  the USCGC  XXXXX, but  “everything started  going down hill.    I believe that  only 
one  other  person  on  the  CGC  Xxxxx  had  an  LOC.    I  started  getting  Page  7’s  that  were  not 
accurate.”   

 

 

 
 
The applicant alleged that his February 12, 2007, NJP should be removed from his record 
because he was a trainee at the time and not a qualified Officer of the Deck (OOD) and because 
he was accused unjustly.  The applicant stated that as a trainee, he was sent to do rounds unac-
companied by a trainer and by mistake marked off the wrong item on the check list.  The appli-
cant alleged that he was “set up” because the bilge had been flooded with 18 inches of water “for 
training purposes” but he was sent to do rounds without a trainer. 
 

The applicant alleged that he should have been given a training log, rather than an official 
log, and he should have been shadowed by the OOD.  However, because of his erroneous mark, 
he was unjustly charged with making a false statement under Article 107 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant noted that that offense requires that the member know-
ingly and intentionally make the false statement, but he did not intend to deceive anyone when 
he mistakenly marked off the wrong item  on the  check list  and he did  not know that it was an 
erroneous mark when he made it.  The applicant  alleged that any falsification was done by the 
OOD because  a “trainee cannot  make an entry on an official  log sheet  without  approval  of the 
qualified OOD.” 
 
The applicant alleged that even though he was a trainee, he received the maximum pun-
 
ishment1  that  a  senior  chief  can  award  as  an  Officer  in  Charge  (OIC).    He  was  fined  $197, 
restricted to the boat for 14 days, put on six months of probation, and awarded low marks on his 
performance  evaluation  with  an  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark,  which  caused  his  eligibility  for  a 
Good Conduct Award to be terminated just two months’ shy of the date he would have received 
his  first  award  of  that  medal.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  punishment  he  received  is  what 
would have been awarded to an OOD on watch and is therefore too harsh for a trainee. 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  after  he  was  awarded  NJP  and  put  on  probation  in  February 
2007, he continued to receive inaccurate Page 7s.  He tried to qualify as an OOD three times, but 
each time he failed because the Board asked him questions that were not in the OOD PQS. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  at  the  end  of  his  probationary  period,  the  OIC  gave  him  two 
options: a reduction in rate to FS3/E-4 or an honorable discharge.  He was not offered a second 
chance  under  the  Second  Chance  Program  and  his  request  for  one  was  denied  by  officers  who 
did not know him.  Because he was not offered the opportunity to transfer to another unit or to 
gain more training and maturity, he chose the honorable discharge. 
 
The applicant stated that after speaking with his mother, who has more than 30 years of 
 
service,  he  asked  the  Command  Master  Chief  (CMC)  for  the  Sector  and  was  told  that  his 
reenlistment code “would probably be a 3 [RE-3].”  Then he submitted a letter asking for a sec-
ond chance under the Second Chance Program, but  his  OIC told him that his  request  had been 
denied by the District.  After speaking to a lieutenant commander in the Personnel Command, he 
submitted a letter requesting reconsideration of his second chance request.  Then he was told by 
the CMC that the District had denied his first request because when the District called the CMC 
to ask him if the applicant’s request should be granted, the CMC told the District, “‘We gave him 

                                                 
1 The applicant received 14 days of restriction and forfeiture of 3 days’ pay.  Under the Military Justice Manual, the 
OIC could also have awarded the applicant 14 days of extra duties but did not do so. 

 

 

what  he wanted,’ meaning a discharge.”  When the applicant  asked the  CMC for help  with  his 
second chance request, the CMC responded, “Do you know how much time I put in on your dis-
charge package?  Do you know how much my time is worth?  At least $50 an hour.”  However, 
with help from his mother’s boss, he submitted his reconsideration request to his OIC.  However, 
the District again denied his request. 
 
 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that  his  DD  214  was  prepared  incorrectly  because  under  the 
regulations,  he  should  have  received  “Unsuitability”  as  the  narrative  reason  for  discharge  but 
instead  received  the  more  specific  “Inaptitude.”    Moreover,  he  alleged,  his  separation  code  is 
wrong  because  the  code  JNC  is  for  an  involuntary  “Unacceptable  Conduct”  separation,  but  he 
was  not  discharged  for  unacceptable  conduct  and  he  did  not  object  to  the  discharge,  so  it  was 
voluntary.    In  addition,  he  stated,  his  discharge  was  improper  because  he  was  never  diagnosed 
with inaptitude or screened by a medical officer for inaptitude, which, he alleged, is required for 
an inaptitude discharge. 
 
 
The applicant admitted that “[i]ndependent duty may have been somewhat premature for 
me.  While  I  excelled in  a large  galley on the  Xxxx, my performance on the CGC  Xxxxx was 
less than I would desire.”  He noted that during his last month on active duty he was assigned to 
Sector Jacksonville and was told that he was doing much better than he had on the XXXXX. 
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  several  letters  of  recommendation 
from his chain of command aboard the XXXX.  The Executive Officer (XO) of the XXXX stated 
that the applicant met the challenges of serving meals to up to 150 people every day “quite well 
and without complaint” and was frequently cited by his division’s senior chief as being “one of 
the  bulwarks  of  a  very  hard  working  staff.”    The  XO  stated  that  based  on  the  applicant’s  per-
formance on the XXXX, he fully supports the applicant’s request for a better reenlistment code. 
 
 
A  chief  warrant  officer,  CWO3  T,  aboard  the  XXXX  stated  that  the  applicant  “was  an 
instrumental part of a four-man team in the preparation of over 480 meals per day over a course 
of a six-month arduous North Pole trip.  Due to lack of personnel, he was quickly thrown into the 
routine of being a duty cook; preparing menus and helping with jack of the dust duties, working 
from early morning hours through late evening hours.”  CWO3 T stated that the applicant “did 
his job with no complaints, [was] never late and as a junior cook [was] always eager to learn.”  
He  further  noted  that  the  command  “had  high  hopes  for  [the  applicant]  and  his  Coast  Guard 
career as the Command eagerly endorsed him for independent duty.” 
 
A senior chief food service technician aboard the XXXX, FSCS F, stated that the appli-
 
cant  was  “an  outstanding  young  chef  with  great  potential.    He  was  consistently  looking  to 
improve  his  skills,  worked  very  hard  to  get  all  of  his  qualifications  done  for  advancement  and 
was  an  outstanding  shipmate  to  his  peers.”    FSCS  F  stated  that  when  the  applicant  requested 
independent duty, he had no doubt whatsoever about the applicant’s ability to handle it.  FSCS F 
stated that the applicant deserves to have his RE-4 code reviewed and upgraded. 
 
The applicant also submitted a statement from his mother, who described the applicant’s 
 
successful and enthusiastic start in the Service.  She alleged that during the applicant’s six-month 
probation, he was treated with hostility and harassment by the OIC and all but two of his crew-

 

 

mates.  She alleged that they prevented him from qualifying for Underway OOD by asking ques-
tions  about  things  he  had  never  heard  of,  had  not  been  taught,  and  were  not  in  the  PQS  for 
Underway OOD.  She argued that her son should have been given a second chance.  She alleged 
that  the  OIC’s  endorsement  to  the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration  for  a  second  chance 
contains a false statement because how could the OIC reduce the applicant in rate without taking 
him  to  mast?    In  addition,  she  alleged  that  her  son  was  never  given  the  option  of  requesting  a 
second chance until she herself told him about it.  Because the applicant’s mother had served as 
his  recruiter, she submitted a copy of a letter she received from  the commanding officer of the 
training center, stating that the applicant had successfully completed recruit training, received the 
Academic Award for maintaining the highest academic average and the Seamanship Award for 
having the highest standing during the seamanship phase of recruit training. 
 

The  applicant  also  submitted  a  statement  from  his  mother’s  commanding  officer,  who 
stated  that  the  applicant’s  evaluation  marks  were  good  before  he  reported  to  the  XXXXX  and 
that  the  applicant’s  precipitous  fall  from  grace  was  “a  quite  tragic  evolution  within  our  human 
resources system.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 
The  applicant’s  military  records  are  incomplete.    The  Coast  Guard  sent  the  Board  a 
scanned  copy  of  the  applicant’s  records,  but  several  significant  documents  concerning  his  per-
formance and discharge are missing.  It appears that in scanning or photocopying certain docu-
ments, someone scanned or copied just every other page.  Upon inquiry by the BCMR staff, the 
Coast Guard stated that once a veteran’s record is scanned, the original paper record is shredded.  
The following is what can be gleaned from the records provided by the Coast Guard. 

 
On April 13, 2004, at age 18, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Upon completing 
recruit training, he was assigned to the icebreaker USCGC XXXX, with berthing for about 140 
crewmembers and scientists.  While aboard the XXXX, the applicant received marks of 4, 5, and 
6, on his performance evaluations, which use a scale of 1 (worst) to 7 (best).  Upon leaving the 
XXXX in April 2006, the applicant received a Letter of Commendation from the captain of the 
USCGC  XXXX, dated  May 2, 2006, for his  performance “with  distinction  as a member of the 
XXXX Food Service Division” from October 2004 to April 2006.  The letter highly praises the 
applicant’s skills, teamwork, and enthusiasm.   

 
From the XXXX, the applicant was transferred to independent duty aboard the XXXXX, 
a tender with a crew of 15 members based in Sector XXXXXXXXXXXX.  On July 18, 2006, the 
applicant  was  counseled  by  the  Watch  Petty  Officer  on  a  Page  7  (form  CG-3307)  about 
disregarding  the  watch  schedule  and  failing  to  serve  as  the  break-in  Officer  of  the  Day  and  to 
notify  anyone  that  he  could  not  stand  duty.    The  applicant  was  warned  that  his  conduct  was 
unacceptable and that further conduct of that sort would result in more serious actions. 

 
On  his  first  performance  evaluation  aboard  the  XXXXX,  dated  October  31,  2006,  the 

applicant received all marks of 4 and 5. 

 

 

 

On  January  15,  2007,  the  XPO  prepared  a  Page  7  for  the  applicant’s  record,  which  the 

applicant signed in acknowledgment, noting that he had 
 

failed to pass the underway portion of the Inport Officer of the Deck qualification package.  Mem-
ber has been administered three qualification boards, and failed to accomplish the qualification in 
the time specified by the training board. 
 
On  (15 JAN  07)  member  has  been  instructed  to  perform  the  following  tasks,  until  fulfillment  of 
Inport Officer of the Deck qualification: 
1.  Complete the SEOPS Student Guide (LANTAREAINST 3502.2 (Series)). 
2.  Member has been allotted one hour per day in-port study and instruction, with the In-port Offi-
cer of the Day. 
3.  Member will remain Port and Starboard for duty while underway. 
 
On January 16, 2007, the applicant was charged with failing to obey an order or regula-
tion  by  failing  to  perform  proper  rounds  aboard  the  cutter,  in  violation  of  Article  92  of  the 
UCMJ,2 and making a false official statement by falsifying an entry to the round sheet, in viola-
tion  of  Article  107  of  the  UCMJ.3    The  named  witnesses  were  an  MK2,  a  BM3,  and  an  EM3.  
The  OIC  appointed  a  BM2  to  investigate  the  charges.    The  applicant  was  advised  of  his  rights 
and waived his right to consult a lawyer.  The investigator reported the following: 
 

Finding Facts: 
 
On 15 JAN 2007, [the applicant] made an improper 2000 round of the tug and barge.  Member did 
not  check  all  of  the  required  bilge  spaces  or  the  bilge  alarm  panel.    [He]  also  recorded  a  false 
reading  of  the  Lazarette  compartment.    The  Lazarette  bilge  was  filled  with  18  inches  of  water.  
The water in that space was put there for training purposes due to [the applicant’s] break-in status. 
 
Opinions: 
 
In  my  opinion,  [the  applicant]  violated  Article  92  –  Failure  to  obey  an  order  or  regulation  and 
Article 107 – False statements.  [He] did not conduct a proper 2000 round.  Member is aware of 
what a proper round consists  of since he  held an Inport OOD qualification prior to this evening.  
[He]  recorded  a  false  reading  of  the  Lazarette  space.    In  his  attached  statement,  [he]  claims  he 
recorded the bilge  water level for Shaft  Alley in  the designated area for the Lazarette.  I believe 
the recording of both space[s] was done intentionally since both bilge level[s] were marked with a 
trace.  A copy of the bilge log for the 15 JAN 2007 is attached. 
 
Recommendations: 
 
I recommend this case be disposed of at mast. 

                                                 
2 Article 92 of the UCMJ, “Failure to obey order or regulation,” is codified at 10 U.S.C. § 892 and states that “[a]ny 
person subject to this chapter who-- 

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;  
(2)  having  knowledge  of  any  other  lawful  order  issued  by  a  member  of  the  armed  forces,  which  it  is  his 
duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or  
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;  

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. 
3 Article 107 of the UCMJ, “False official statements,” is codified at 10 U.S.C. § 892 and states that “[a]ny person 
subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official 
document,  knowing  it  to  be  false,  or  makes  any  other  false  official  statement  knowing  it  to  be  false,  shall  be 
punished as a court-martial may direct.”  

 

 

 
The investigator included with his report statements from the three witnesses.  The EM3, 
who was the OOD, and the MK2 stated that when the applicant returned to the bridge from his 
round,  the  MK2  asked  him  if  everything  was  satisfactory,  and  the  applicant  stated  that  it  was.  
They left the bridge, found the bilge alarm system secure, and told the applicant to meet them on 
the  fantail,  where  they  discussed  with  him  what  he  had  recorded  on  the  round  sheet  and  the 
importance of doing a proper round.  The applicant told them that he had forgotten to check the 
Lazarette space.  With the OIC’s permission they emptied the bilge water, which had been put in 
that space “for training purposes with [the applicant], to see his initial action and help him with 
SEOPS [Special and Emergency Operations and Procedures].”  The BM3 stated that he was on 
the barge when the applicant performed his rounds and that he saw the applicant  go down into 
the main hold for about ten minutes.  When the applicant came back out on deck, the BM3 saw 
him check the “spuds” and open up the #3 void but leave without checking the aft rake bilge or 
the trim tank bilge.   

 
The investigator also submitted a copy of the log for the January 15, 2007, which appears 
as shown below.  The Ts mean trace amounts of water were found, and the applicant’s marks for 
the 2000 (10 p.m.) round are shaded. 

 

BARGE 
FORWARD RAKE 
DC SHOP 
AUX SHOP 
MAIN HOLD 
3 VOID 
PAINT LOCKER 
AFT RAKE 
AIR REC. ROOM 
DC STORAGE 
 

TRIM TANK 
FORWARD HOLD 
ENGINE ROOM 
SHAFT ALLEY 
LAZARETTE 
SEWAGE LVL 

 

BILGE ROUND SHEET 
0800 

0400 

0000 

T 
T 
0 
T 
T 
0 
T 
0 
0 

T 
0 
T 
T 
T 
1/3 

T 
T 
0 
T 
T 
0 
T 
0 
0 

TENDER 

T 
0 
T 
T 
T 
1/3 

T 
T 
0 
T 
T 
0 
T 
0 
0 

T 
0 
T 
T 
T 
1/3 

1200 

1600 

2000 

T 
T 
0 
T 
T 
0 
T 
0 
0 

T 
0 
T 
T 
T 
1/3 

T 
T 
0 
T 
T 
0 
T 
0 
0 

T 
0 
T 
T 
T 
1/3 

T 
T 
0 
T 
T 
0 
T 
0 
0 

T 
0 
T 
T 
T 
1/3 

FIRE SUP SYS PANEL 
(SAFE) 
FIRE SUP SYS NITRO 
BOTTLE (2000-2500PSI) 

SAFE 

SAFE 

SAFE 

SAFE 

SAFE 

SAFE 

2300 

2300 

2300 

2300 

2300 

2300 

 
 

 

 

 

The applicant submitted a statement for the investigation in which he stated that he  

 
had  the  Break-in  OOD  watch.    At  or  around  2000,  I  proceeded  to  commence  a  2000  Bilge  round  of  the  tug  and 
barge.  During the round, I accidentally recorded the amount of water for shaft alley in the location on the log for the 
Laz.  I intended on returning to the fantail at the end of my round of the barge, to retrieve the reading of the Laz, and 
get a drink from the cooler on the fantail.  I failed to return to the fantail, to retrieve the reading.  I returned to the 
Bridge,  where  [the  MK2]  reviewed  the  log  entries,  and  departed  the  bridge.   [The  EM3]  called  me  on  the  bridge, 
requesting my presence on the fantail.  [The MK2] had the hatch to the Laz open, and stated “that looks like a lot 
more than a trace”.  I replied that I did not check that space. 

 
On February 12, 2007, the applicant was taken to mast by the OIC and punished with 14 
days’ restriction to the boat and forfeiture of 3 days’ pay.4  The OIC prepared a Page 7 advising 
the applicant that he was  
 

being placed on performance probation for unsuitability (Inaptitude, Apathy) as per section 12-B-
16-b of the Personnel Manual.  A pattern of substandard performance has been documented over 
the past several  months and will no longer be tolerated.  You reviewed the unit Standing Orders 
when  you  reported  on  board,  included  in  these  Standing  Orders  is  the  command’s  timeline  for 
qualifications.    To  this  date  you  have  still  not  fully  qualified  as  in-port  OOD,  this  goal  had  an 
expected completion date of  2  months.   You  have sat before the qualification board 3 times and 
failed  on  each  attempt  to  complete  this  qualification;  your  knowledge  level  even  appeared  to 
digress  when  you  appeared  before  the  last  board.    It  was  the  recommendation  of  the  board  to 
rescind your interim qualification and have you complete another SEOPS student guide. 
 
On  numerous  occasions  you  have  been  issued  explicit  orders  which  you  fail  to  carry  out,  most 
recently  documented  in  a  3307  dated  05FEB07.    Several  times  you  have  failed  to  inform  the 
command as to changes in meal schedules.  You have failed to procure the necessary food stuffs to 
feed the crew for a scheduled deployment, even when reminded numerous times.  You have been 
formally and informally counseled on your disregard for wearing the required uniform.  You are 
reminded monthly to complete your credit card verification.  These are examples of the simplest 
of routine tasks which are normally accomplished by members of lesser pay-grades. 
 
You  have  been  informally  counseled  numerous  times  by  each  member  of  the  command  on  how 
you manage your time, yet you still appear to struggle staying focused  on completing the task at 
hand.  It is evident to each member of the command you are not willing to put forth the effort to 
become a responsible, productive and contributing member of the crew.  You must take stock in 
your  actions  which  generated  this  situation.    You  have  six  months  to  overcome  the  deficiencies 
which created this situation, or you will be processed for discharge.  If you do not show significant 
improvement in overcoming the deficiencies during the probationary period an administrative dis-
charge will be initiated. 
 
In conjunction with the mast on February 12, 2007, the applicant received a special per-
formance evaluation on which he received two very low marks of 2, seven low marks of 3, four-
teen average marks of 4, two good marks of 5, and an unsatisfactory conduct mark. 

 
On April 30, 2007, the applicant received a regular, semiannual performance evaluation 

with five marks of low 3, nineteen marks of 4, one mark of 5, and a satisfactory conduct mark. 

 

                                                 
4 Under the Military Justice Manual, the maximum punishment an OIC can award at NJP is 14 days of restriction, 
14 days of extra duties, and forfeiture of 3 days’ pay. 

 

 

On  July  19,  2007,  the  XPO  prepared  a  Page  7  for  the  applicant’s  record  stating  the 

following: 
 

While standing the Junior Office of the Day watch from 2245 to 0545 you disobeyed a direct order 
from  the  units  Engineering  Petty  Officer  to  make  and  record  hourly  rounds  on  the  refrigerators, 
one of  which  had just been electrically repaired and required close attention.  You also failed to 
sound  and  record  the  soundings  for  the  cutters  fuel  tanks.    Furthermore,  you  failed  to  properly 
maintain the ships material condition of readiness by closing but not dogging the Trim Tank and 
Lazarette  hatches.    These  actions  are  not  in  compliance  with  proper  watch-standing  routine  and 
will not be tolerated any further. 
 
In  August  2007,5  the  OIC  prepared  a  long  Page  7  concerning  the  applicant’s  poor  per-
formance.    However,  only  the  second  page  of  this  Page  7,  which  was  apparently  three  pages 
long, survives in his record, and the other pages were shredded.  On this second page, the OIC 
described many deficiencies in the applicant’s performance, stating that he had failed to take out 
the trash or to order non-rates to take out the trash; that he had to be reminded nearly every time 
he  went  shopping  to  remove  the  bags  and  boxes,  which  created  a  hazard;  that  he  had  failed  to 
clean the grill even though the MAA had told him to and even though he had had plenty of time 
to do so; that the OIC had had “to constantly follow up behind you to ensure even the most rou-
tine  tasks  associated  with  your  rating  are  accomplished”;  that  he  routinely  prepared  meals  late 
without warning the OIC or the XPO so that they could plan around the change in time; that he 
had allowed hundreds of dollars worth of food to rot through neglect despite having attended FS 
“A” School and “C” School and training by the Sector’s HS1; that he had failed to purchase suf-
ficient  water  or  Gatorade  for  their  last  voyage  and  did  not  notify  the  XPO  until  the  cutter  was 
underway and then, after purchasing the drinks at their next stop, left them in a vehicle so that 
they only got on board because another member noticed them in the back of the vehicle; and that 
he had failed to prepare the galley for a bi-annual inspection in a timely manner despite having 
been notified the month before. 

 
On August 17, 2007, the OIC notified the applicant in a memorandum, which the appli-
cant also signed, that he had initiated the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability “based on your 
unwillingness vice inability to conform/comply.”  He noted that the applicant had failed to meet 
the  terms  of  his  six-month  performance  probation  for  apathy  and  inaptitude  but  that  his  marks 
supported  receipt  of  an  honorable  discharge.    He  told  the  applicant  he  had  a  right  to  consult  a 
lawyer  and  gave  the  applicant  contact  information  to  do  so.   He  also  told  the  applicant  that  he 
could  submit  a  statement  on  his  behalf  to  agree  or  disagree  with  the  recommendation  and  that 
any  disagreement  would  be  forwarded  to  the  Personnel  Command  with  the  OIC’s  recommen-
dation. 

 
On August  22, 2007, the OIC sent  a recommendation for the applicant’s  honorable dis-

charge  for  unsuitability  to  the  Personnel  Command  through  the  Sector  and  District  commands.  
He  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been  placed  on  performance  probation  for  six  months  due  to 
“unsuitability (Inaptitude, Apathy)” and that because the applicant failed to meet the terms of his 
performance probation, the OIC was recommending him for discharge.  He noted that the appli-
cant had been informed of the recommendation in the August 17, 2007, memorandum.  He stated 
that in addition to being punished at mast on February 12, 2007, the applicant had been formally 

                                                 
5 According to the DRB, there were Page 7s dated August 13 and 14, 2007, in the applicant’s record. 

 

 

counseled on six other occasions “for repeated disregard of direct  orders and/or written policy, 
enclosures (4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).”  (Enclosures 4, 6, and 8, which were apparently Page 7s coun-
seling  the  applicant  on  his  performance,  are  not  in  the  record  and  have  apparently  been  shred-
ded.) 

 
On September 10, 2007, a CWO2 acting on behalf of the District Commander forwarded 
the recommendation for discharge to the Personnel Command and noted that the applicant “is not 
recommended  for  the  Second  Chance  Program.”    (This  was  the  “second  endorsement”  of  the 
OIC’s recommendation for discharge.  The first endorsement, which would have been prepared 
by the Sector command, is not in the record and has apparently been shredded.) 

 
On September 18, 2007, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant 
on October 17, 2007, with an honorable discharge “by reason of unsuitability due to inaptitude 
under Article 12.B.16. PERSMAN provided no disciplinary action pending.  Indicate code JNC 
in block 26 of DD form  214CG.  In accordance with COMDTINST M1900.4D, block 28 shall 
only indicate the narrative reason unsuitability.” 

 
On  October  4,  2007,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration  for  a  second 

chance.  This document is not in the record and has apparently been shredded. 

 
Also on October 4, 2007, the OIC of the XXXXX forwarded the applicant’s request for 
reconsideration  for  a  second  chance  with  an  endorsement  recommending  that  the  request  be 
denied.  The OIC stated that he personally read to the applicant a Page 7 dated August 14, 2007, 
notifying him that his probationary period was complete, and that on August 17, 2007, he gave 
the  applicant  a  memorandum  notifying  him  of  his  intent  to  discharge  him  after  reading  the 
memorandum  to  him.   The OIC stated that he had also  discussed the applicant’s acknowledge-
ment with him, and the applicant understood that he could ask to be retained or choose to be dis-
charged.    He  advised  the  applicant  of  his  options  under  the  Personnel  Manual  if  he  requested 
retention and told the applicant that he could not say definitively whether the applicant would be 
retained  if  he  requested  it  because  the  decision  would  be  made  at  the  District  level.    The  OIC 
stated that he advised the applicant  to  think about  it and defer his  decision until  the end of the 
next week and recommended that he contact his mother.  In addition, he told the applicant that he 
could consult legal counsel and gave him telephone numbers to use.  Two days later, the appli-
cant told him that he had decided to get out of the Coast Guard.  Therefore, the OIC gave him the 
acknowledgement form to complete, and the applicant elected not to object to his discharge and 
not  to  make a statement.   (The completed  acknowledgement form is  not  in  the record  and was 
apparently shredded.)  The OIC denied ever telling the applicant that if he requested retention the 
OIC would take him to mast and reduce him in rate.6 

 
On  October  5,  2007,  the  Sector  command  forwarded  the  applicant’s  second  chance 
request to the District Commander with a recommendation that the request be denied.  He stated 
that the applicant had been given a chance to request a second chance when he was notified of 
the command’s intent to discharge him, but instead the applicant had “waived his right to submit 
a statement on his behalf and did not object to the proposed discharge, enclosure (1).”  He also 
stated that the applicant “was provided numerous opportunities to correct his work performance 
                                                 
6 As the applicant noted, reduction in rate is a punishment that was beyond the OIC’s authority to impose. 

 

 

and behavior during a 6-month probationary period before the command eventually recommend-
ed him for discharge on 22 August 2007.” 

 
On October 15, 2007, the District Commander informed the applicant that his request for 
reconsideration for a second chance waiver had been considered and denied after reviewing the 
endorsements  of  the  OIC  and  the  Sector  Commander  and  after  consulting  with  the  Command 
Master Chief for the District, the District Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, and the District Chief of 
Personnel. 

 
On  October  17,  2007,  the  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  under  Article 
12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual, with a JNC separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and 
“Inaptitude” as his narrative reason for separation. 

 
On February 26, 2009, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) notified the applicant that his 
request for correction had been denied and that his discharge by reason of inaptitude with an RE-
4 reenlistment  code would stand as issued.  The DRB found that the applicant’s discharge was 
equitable and proper, that the separation code JNC was appropriate, and that “the narrative rea-
son matches the circumstances that led to this member’s discharge.”  The DRB listed as evidence 
in  his  record  negative  Page  7s  dated  July  13  and  18,  2006;  December  19,  2006;  January  15, 
2007; two dated February 5, 2007; two dated February 12, 2007; July 19, 2007; and August 13 
and 14, 2007.  However, only four of these Page 7s and one page of a fifth appear in his record 
and the rest were apparently shredded. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On March 12, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief.  In so doing, he adopted the facts and analysis 
provided in an enclosed memorandum submitted by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service 
Center (PSC), who recommended that no relief be granted.  Commander, PSC stated that he con-
curs with the findings of the DRB and alleged that the applicant had “failed to substantiate any 
error or injustice with regards to [his] record.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On May 4, 2010, the  Board received the applicant’s response to  the views of the Coast 
Guard.  The applicant stated that when he received his OIC’s memorandum he was verbally told 
that he had two options, which were taking a reduction in rate to FS3 or agreeing to an honorable 
discharge.  He stated that he “was never told how the reduction in rate would take place.”  How-
ever,  he  felt  he  would  never  have  a  chance  to  succeed  on  the  XXXXX  because  he  “had  been 
singled  out  and  harassed  so  much.”    He  stated  that  he  agreed  to  the  discharge  and  waived  his 
right to submit a statement because he felt depressed due to the harassment.  He did not contact 
the legal counsel because he did not know what an attorney could do for him.  He assumed his 
OIC was telling the truth and it was not until he consulted his mother that he knew the OIC was 
not.  The applicant stated that neither the Command Master Chief nor the OIC warned him that 
he would receive an RE-4 code.  He also repeated his allegations that his NJP at mast was unjust 

 

 

and that his OIC never mentioned the Second Chance Policy to him before he agreed to be dis-
charged. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under Article 12.B.16.a. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2007, Commander, CGPC 
had authority to  discharge members for unsuitability.  Article 12.B.16.b.  lists the causes for an 
unsuitability discharge as  
 

(1)  inaptitude,  which  is  described  as  “unfit  due  to  lack  of  general  adaptability,  want  or 

readiness of skill, clumsiness, or inability to learn”;  

(2)  personality disorders “as determined by medical authority” and listed in Chapter 5 of 

the Medical Manual;  

(3)  “[a]pathy, defective  attitudes, adjustment disorders as listed in  the Medical  Manual, 
COMDTINST M6000.1 (series), Chapter 5, inability to expend effort constructively, 
or other observable defect for which a separation designator code (SPD code) exists 
that renders a member unsuitable for further military service”;  

(4)  unsanitary habits;  
(5)  alcohol abuse; and  
(6)  financial irresponsibility. 

 

Article  12.B.16.c.  states  that  before  initiating  the  administrative  discharge  of  a  member 
for inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes, unsanitary habits, or financial irresponsibility, a com-
manding  officer  must  provide  the  member  with  a  formal  probationary  period  of  at  least  six 
months, which will be documented on a Page 7 stating that administrative discharge processing 
will be initiated unless the member shows significant improvement in overcoming the deficiency 
during the probationary period.  

 
Article 12.B.16.d. states that a member being recommended for discharge for unsuitabil-
ity must be notified of the reason for the pending discharge and of his right to object and to sub-
mit a statement agreeing or objecting to the discharge. 

 
Article 12.B.16.h.2. states that members being discharged for unsuitability must undergo 
a  physical  examination  and  “[i]f  psychiatric  considerations  are  involved  (i.e.,  cases  involving 
conditions dealing with the mind, mental processes, feelings, desires, behavior, personality traits, 
thoughts, attitudes, etc) a psychiatrist shall describe the condition in terminology set forth in sec-
tion 5.B. of the Medical Manual, COMDTINST M6000.1 (series).” 

 
Article 12.B.16.a. ends with the instruction to “[s]ee Article 12.B.1 [regarding the Second 
Chance Program] when recommending the discharge of a first-term performer for unsuitability.”  
Article 12.B.1.a. describes the Coast Guard’s Second Chance Program as follows: 
 

In an effort to retain good, solid first-term performers with potential, but who have made a youth-
ful  mistake  that  would  otherwise  result  in  their  discharge,  the  Commandant  has  established  a 
“Second Chance Program”. The Second Chance Program authorizes the first Flag Officer/SES in 
the  chain-of-command  of  the  first-term  performers  to  waive  all  policy  discharge  authorities 
(except as noted below) contained in Article 12.B.9. (Unsatisfactory Performers), Article 12.B.12. 

 

 

 

(Convenience of the Government), Article 12.B.16. (Unsuitability), and Article 12.B.18. (Miscon-
duct).  The  first  Flag  Officer/SES  with  assistance  from  their  units  shall  define  the  internal  proc-
esses for forwarding waiver requests to them. 

Under Article 12.B.9. of the manual, “unsatisfactory performers” who “cannot or will not 
contribute  to  supporting  the  Coast  Guard’s  missions  may  be  discharged”  after  a  probationary 
period  of  at  least  six  months.    If  the  probationary  period  is  unsuccessful,  the  member  must  be 
notified of the pending  discharge and of his  right to  object  and submit  a statement agreeing or 
objecting to the discharge. 
 
 
Article  1.E.  of  the  Coast  Guard  instruction  for  completing  discharge  forms,  COMDT-
INST  M1900.4D,  states  that  a  member’s  DD  214  should  show  a  separation  code  “as  shown  in 
the SPD Handbook or as stated by [the Personnel Command] in the message granting discharge 
authority,”  and  that  the  reenlistment  code  should  be  one  of  those  authorized  for  the  separation 
code under the SPD Handbook.  It also states that the Personnel Command “will specify entries 
to  be  made  in  this  item  [block  28  for  the  narrative  reason  for  separation]  by  pertinent  letter  or 
orders issued.”  The SPD Handbook includes the following combinations of codes and narrative 
reasons for separation which might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

SPD 
Code 

Narrative 
Reason for 
Separation 

 

RE Code 

Separation 
Authority 

 

Explanation 

JNC  Unacceptable 

RE-4 

12.B.16. 

Conduct 

“Involuntary  discharge …  when  member  performs  acts of 
unacceptable  conduct  (i.e.,  moral  and/or  professional 
dereliction) not otherwise listed.” 

JHJ 

Unsatisfactory 
Performance 

RE-3Y or 

12.B.9. 

RE-4 

“Involuntary discharge … when a member fails to perform 
duties and assignments satisfactorily.” 

JND  Miscellaneous/ 

RE-1 or 

12.B.12. 

General Reasons 

RE-4 

“Involuntary  discharge  …  when  a  Service  component 
does not have a Service reporting requirement for specific 
reasons  and  desires  to  identify  reasons  collectively  “All 
other reasons” which qualify a member for separation.” 

 
 
On  November  17,  2008,  a  year  after  the  applicant’s  discharge,  the  Commandant  issued 
ALCOAST 562/08 in which it was noted that units had been completing DD 214s inconsistently 
in  that some used the specific reasons  listed in  the SPD Handbook and others used the general 
reasons as directed by COMDTINST M1900.4D.  The ALCOAST states that consultation with 
the Department of Defense had determined that only the narrative reasons for separation shown 
in the SPD Handbook should be used, rather than the more general ones, such as “Unsuitability.” 
 
 
On March 18, 2010, the Commandant issued ALCOAST 125/10, which makes the RE-3 
reenlistment code the default for the separation codes for which an RE-3 is an authorized option. 
 

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 over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  The appli-

cation was timely filed. 

 

 

 
2. 

The applicant alleged that his NJP dated February 12, 2007, and the JNC separa-
tion code, RE-4 reenlistment code, and narrative reason for separation (“Inaptitude”) on his DD 
214  are  erroneous  and  unjust.7    He  also  alleged  that  he  was  unjustly  denied  a  second  chance 
under the Second Chance Program.    The Board  begins its  analysis in  every case by  presuming 
that  the  disputed  information  in  the  applicant’s  military  record  is  correct  as  it  appears  in  his 
record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
disputed  information  is  erroneous  or  unjust.8    Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  pre-
sumes that Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties 
“correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”9   

 
3. 

 
Regarding the NJP, the applicant alleged that because he was in training on Janu-
ary 15, 2007, he should not have been charged with disobeying an order and making a false offi-
cial  statement.    He  alleged  that  the  trained  OOD  on  duty  should  have  accompanied  him  on 
rounds to ensure that he did not make the mistakes he made and that he should have been given a 
training log to mark, rather than the real log, in which case, he alleged, his mark would not have 
been considered a false official statement.  The record supports the applicant’s claim that he was 
training as  an OOD.   However, the investigator  found that the applicant  was “aware  of what  a 
proper  round  consists  of  since  he  held  an  inport  OOD  qualification  prior  to  this  [January  15, 
2007]  evening.”    Therefore,  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  shows  that  the  applicant  knew 
what  he  was  supposed  to  do  on  rounds  and  knew  how  to  mark  the  round  sheet.    The  record 
shows  that  on  January  15,  2007,  he  was  counseled  about  needing  to  qualify  as  an  OOD  and 
advised,  in  particular,  to  study  emergency  procedures  and  receive  instruction  from  the  OOD.  
The  Lazarette  on  the  tender  was  partially  flooded  that  evening  just  to  help  him  practice  an 
emergency procedure.  However, the investigation showed that he failed to check the Lazarette, 
the aft rake, and the trim tank but nevertheless marked the round sheet as if he had checked them 
and told the OOD and an MK2 when he returned to the bridge that everything was satisfactory as 
if he had fully completed the rounds. 
 
The Board finds that the OIC did not err in finding at mast that the preponderance 
 
of  the  evidence10  showed  that  the  applicant  had  disobeyed  an  order  and  made  a  false  official 
statement on January 15, 2007.  The record shows that the applicant disobeyed an order because 
he was directed to perform rounds, which he knew how to do, and failed to complete them.  The 
record  also  shows  that  he  made  at  least  three  marks  on  the  round  sheet  as  if  he  had  checked 
spaces that he did not actually check and then returned to the bridge and informed the OOD and 
the MK2 that everything was satisfactory as if he had properly completed the rounds.  In arguing 
that he should have been given a training log to mark, instead of the real round sheet, the Board 

4. 

                                                 
7 For purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that shocks 
the sense of justice.”  Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989),  rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 
(citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 
8 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)).   
9 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
10 The standard of proof at mast under Article 15 of the UCMJ is the preponderance of the evidence. 

 

 

5. 

notes that even a mark on a training log is a false official statement if it is made with the intent to 
deceive.  Whether statements are “official” is determined by whether the statement—either writ-
ten or verbal—relates to the official duties of either the speaker or the hearer.11  The statement 
must concern a governmental function and be made by someone carrying out a military duty.12  
Training to be OOD is a military duty as is performing rounds.  The applicant’s written and ver-
bal statements that he had completed the rounds, even training rounds, clearly related to the offi-
cial duties of the applicant, the OOD, and the MK2.  Although the applicant alleged that he sim-
ply made a mistake in marking off the Lazarette on the round sheet and did not intend to deceive 
anyone, the investigation showed that he also marked off the aft rake and the trim tank without 
checking them and that when he returned to the bridge he pretended to have fully completed the 
rounds. 
 
 
Because the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
OIC  erred  by  awarding  him  NJP  at  mast  for  violating  Articles  92  and  107  of  the  UCMJ,  the 
Board  finds  no  grounds  for  removing  the  NJP  from  his  record  or  for  awarding  him  the  Good 
Conduct Medal he was denied because of the mast. 
 
 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  discharge,  the  Board  finds  that  it  was  conducted  in 
accordance with policy but was incorrectly documented on his DD 214.  The record shows that 
the applicant’s command acted in accordance with Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual by 
affording the applicant a six-month probationary period and by initiating his discharge when his 
performance  did  not  improve  to  an  acceptable  level  during  the  period.    Although  some  of  the 
Page 7s documenting his poor performance have been accidentally shredded by the Coast Guard 
since the DRB reviewed his record, enough remain to substantiate the OIC’s claim that the appli-
cant’s discharge for inaptitude was warranted.  In addition, although the acknowledgement form 
for the discharge notification did not survive the Coast Guard’s shredding  of his paper records, 
the preponderance of the evidence shows that he was notified of the pending discharge and of his 
right to submit a statement on his own behalf.   In this regard the Board notes that his signature 
appears on the OIC’s notification memorandum, dated August 17, 2007, and that memorandum 
advised the applicant of his rights.  In addition, the OIC’s memorandum dated October 4, 2007, 
states that after the applicant agreed to be discharged just two days after the OIC read him a Page 
7 about his performance probation dated August 14, 2007, the applicant completed the acknowl-
edgement form and elected not to object to his discharge or to make a statement. 
 
 
The applicant argued that under Article 12.B.16.h.2. of the Personnel Manual, he 
should have been evaluated by  a psychiatrist because he was discharged  for apathy  and inapti-
tude for his military duties.  However, apathy and inaptitude are not listed as psychiatric condi-
tions in the Chapter 5.B. of the Medical Manual.  The Coast Guard relies on the American Psy-
chiatric  Association’s  Diagnostic  and  Statistical  Manual  of  Mental  Disorders  (DSM-IV-TR) 
when diagnosing psychiatric conditions.  Unlike personality and adjustment disorders, which are 
diagnosable  psychiatric  conditions  that  may  result  in  unsuitability  discharges  under  Article 
12.B.16.,  neither  apathy  nor  inaptitude  for  military  duties  is  listed  as  a  diagnosable  psychiatric 
condition  in  the  DSM-IV-TR.    The  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  err  by  failing  to 
have the applicant evaluated by a psychiatrist before discharging him for inaptitude. 

6. 

7. 

                                                 
11 United States v. Day, 66 M.J. 172, 174 (CAAF, 2008). 
12 United States v. Cummings, 3 M.J. 246, 246 (CMA, 1977). 

 

 

8. 

9. 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  coerced  into  accepting  the  discharge  without 
objection because the OIC told him he would otherwise be reduced in rate.  However, the OIC 
did  not  need the applicant’s agreement before initiating his  discharge  for inaptitude.  Members 
can  be  and  often  are  discharged  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  despite 
their objections.  The applicant also alleged that the only way the OIC could have reduced him in 
rate was to take him to mast, but as the applicant himself noted, a reduction in rate was beyond 
the OIC’s mast authority.  The OIC denied having threatened to take the applicant to mast for a 
reduction in rate.  However, the OIC could legitimately have initiated the applicant’s reduction in 
rate  under  Article  5.C.38.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which  allows  administrative,  rather  than 
disciplinary,  reductions  in  rate  for  incompetence  following  a  three-month  probationary  period.  
Therefore, reduction in rate was a legitimate option for the applicant. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  discharge  was  mischaracterized  as  involuntary 
because he did not object to it.  However, voluntary discharges are those initiated by the member 
himself.    The  fact  that  the  applicant  opted  not  to  object  after  the  OIC  initiated  his  involuntary 
discharge did not render it voluntary.  The involuntariness of the applicant’s discharge is further 
proved by his repeated requests for a second chance. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  received  a  second  chance  pursuant  to 
Article 12.B.1.a. of the Personnel Manual and that his OIC failed to offer him one.  Under Arti-
cle  12.B.1.a.,  “good,  solid  first-term  performers  with  potential,  but  who  have  made  a  youthful 
mistake”  may  be  transferred  to  a  new  unit  for  a  second  chance.    Although  the  applicant’s  per-
formance was very good aboard the XXXX, his months-long record of poor performance aboard 
the XXXXX cannot reasonably be characterized as “a youthful mistake.”  Moreover, the record 
shows  that  he  requested  a  second  chance  prior  to  his  discharge  and  that  it  was  denied  by  the 
District command.  Based on the record, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred in denying him a second chance under 
Article 12.B.1.a. 
 
 
The  record  shows  that  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged  with  a  JNC 
separation code for professional dereliction.  “Professional dereliction” seems slightly overblown 
as a term applied to someone who was discharged, essentially, for being a 21/22-year-old habi-
tual goof-off, but it has been used before in similar circumstances.13  Nor is the term technically 
incorrect since FS2s clearly have professional duties/responsibilities.   
 

10. 

11. 

12.  When  ordering  the  applicant’s  discharge,  the  Personnel  Command  prescribed 
“unsuitability” as the narrative reason for discharge on his DD 214 in accordance with the provi-
sions of COMDTINST M1900.4D.  Under the SPD Handbook, the narrative reason should have 
been “unacceptable conduct.”  The command, however, used “inaptitude,” which is not a proper 
narrative reason under either authority.  “Unsuitability” and “unacceptable conduct,” though cor-
rect under the regulations, are not corrections that could be deemed to be in the applicant’s favor 
since  both  could  be  construed  as  broader  and  potentially  more  prejudicial  terms  than  “inapti-

                                                 
13 See, e.g., final decisions in BCMR Docket Nos. 2005-041 and 2009-197, in which the applicants, who were prior 
non-rates, were discharged and assigned the JNC separation code after being counseled about lackadaisical attitudes, 
poor performance, failing to obey orders, etc., as young petty officers. 

 

 

13. 

tude.”  The Board does not correct matters that are in an applicant’s favor for the worse.14  How-
ever, the term “inaptitude” is unacceptable under the regulations and so needs to be corrected. 
 
 
The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to  show  that  he 
was  discharged  for  “unsatisfactory  performance”  with  a  JHJ  separation  code  under  Article 
12.B.9. of the Personnel Manual.15  This  correction is  in  the applicant’s favor because while it 
accurately describes the cause of his discharge, it does not negatively reflect on his attitude and 
abilities  in  the  way  the  term  “inaptitude”  does;  it  does  not  suggest  that  he  was  unable  to  learn 
how to do his job.  In addition, members discharged with the JNC separation code may receive 
only an RE-4 reenlistment code and so are barred from reenlisting, whereas with the JHJ separa-
tion code, members may receive an RE-3Y reenlistment code, which allows a recruiter to reenlist 
them with a waiver.  In fact, under ALCOAST 125/10, issued on March 18, 2010, the RE-3Y is 
now  the  default  reenlistment  code  for  members  discharged  for  “unsatisfactory  performance.”  
The applicant claimed that his poor performance was due to his being immature and unready for 
the  responsibility  of  independent  duty  as  an  FS2,  and  his  fine  performance  as  part  of  a  team 
aboard the XXXX suggests that this assessment may be accurate.  Therefore, the Board finds that 
the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  should  be  corrected  to  RE-3Y  so  that  he  is  not  barred  from 
reenlisting. 
 
 
The Board notes that the applicant requested a discharge for “miscellaneous/gen-
eral  reasons”  with  an  RE-1  code.    However,  in  light  of  his  record  of  dereliction  of  duty  and 
unsatisfactory performance aboard the XXXXX, the Board is not persuaded that he is entitled to 
such  changes  simply  because  the  Coast  Guard  documented  the  narrative  reason  for  separation 
erroneously on his DD 214.16 
 

14. 

15. 

16. 

The applicant made numerous allegations with respect to the actions and attitudes 
of his chain of command and other officers involved in his discharge.  Those allegations not spe-
cifically addressed above are considered to be not dispositive of the case.17   
 
Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  correcting  the  separation  authority  in 
 
block  25  of  the  applicant’s  DD  214  to  Article  12.B.9.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  separation 
code in block 26 to JHJ, the reenlistment code in block 27 to RE-3Y, and the narrative reason for 
separation in block 28 to “unsatisfactory performance.”  Moreover, these corrections should be 
made on a newly issued DD 214 so that he will not be prejudiced by the information on his old 
DD 214. 

                                                 
14 Friedman v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 239, 252-53 (1958) (holding that the BCMRs were established to correct 
errors and injustices against applicants and not to correct errors favorable to them).  
15  Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  discharges  for  “substandard  performance,”  but  this  term  is 
usually applied to members who are deemed to be not apathetic or unwilling but unable to produce work of standard 
quality for reasons beyond their control. 
16 Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, an applicant is entitled to “nothing more than placement in the same position he would 
have been had no error been made.” Denton v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 188, 199-200, cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 
(1975),  cited in Bliss v. Johnson, 279 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2003); see Kimmel v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 
579, 591 (1971) (“The injustice was removed by placing plaintiff in the same position he would have been had no 
error been made. This was all that plaintiff was entitled to receive.”) 
17 See Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the Board need not address arguments that 
are frivolous or could not affect the Board's ultimate disposition of a case). 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application  of former  FS2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 
 

The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  him  a  new  DD  214  (rather  than  a  DD  215)  showing  the 

following: 

 

  The separation authority in block 25 shall be Article 12.B.9. of the Personnel Manual. 
  The separation code in block 26 shall be JHJ. 
  The reenlistment code in block 27 shall be RE-3Y. 
  The narrative reason for separation in block 28 shall be “Unsatisfactory Performance.”  

 
In  addition,  the  following  notation  may  be  made  in  Block  18  of  the  DD  214:    “Action 

taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

   
 George A.Weller