DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

  

_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for Correction           
of the Coast Guard Record of:                     
                                         
                                                                                       BCMR Docket No. 2010-069 
                                                                               
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                             
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  

FINAL DECISION                                                                                     

 
 
This  is  a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.   The Chair docketed the case upon receipt of the applicant's 
completed  application  on  January 4, 2010, and subsequently prepared the final  decision for the 
Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c).  
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.  
 

This final decision, dated September 23, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  general  discharge  under  honorable 
 
conditions (general discharge) to an honorable discharge and to change his RE-4 (not eligible to 
reenlist) reenlistment code to an RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).  The applicant asked the Board 
to  grant  his  request  for  an  honorable  discharge  so  that  he  is  eligible  to  use  MGIB  educational 
benefits.   
 
 
The applicant began a two-year period of active duty on November 2, 1999.  Through a 
series  of  extension  agreements,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  a  total  of  four  years  and  five 
months, which would have amounted to a total of six years and five months of active duty if it 
had  all  been  served.    However,  on  December  19,  2005,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  a 
general discharge under honorable conditions, by reason of misconduct, with a JKN1 separation 
code and an RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code.  At the time of his discharge, the 
applicant had served six years, one month, and eighteen days on active duty.   
 
 
The applicant stated that a June 2005 special court-martial conviction is the only blemish 
in his record of service. As a result of that conviction, he was sentenced to 60 days’ restriction, 
reduced  to  pay  grade  E-2,  forfeiture  of  $456  per  month  for  12  months,  and  hard  labor  without 
confinement  for  90  days.    The  applicant  stated  that  his  sentence  did  not  include  a  punitive 

                                                 
1   A JKN separation code is assigned to a member whose involuntary discharge is directed by established directive 
when  the  member  has  established  a  pattern  of  misconduct  consisting  solely  of  minor  disciplinary  infractions.  
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook.   

 

  

discharge.    He  stated  that  he  is  aware  that  the  conviction  looks  very  bad  and  that  he  is  still 
embarrassed by it; but he has learned from his mistakes and has made great strides in improving 
himself.  He wants to complete his education.  He submitted a letter from a CWO2 and a letter 
from a LT, both written in 2004, supporting his then application for the warrant officer program.  
The recommendations are very positive.   
 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on May 15, 2005 and that it is in 
the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  because  “[he]  has  been 
working on this for the past 2 years and [he] would truly like to be given another chance.”   
   

PERTINENT EXCEPTS FROM APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 

 
On November 1, 2005, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant 
that  he  was  recommending  that  the  commandant  discharge  the  applicant  from  the Coast  Guard 
with  a  general  discharge  due  to  misconduct.    The  applicant  was  convicted  at  a  special  court-
martial  of  being  an  accessory  after  the  fact,2  making  a  false  official  statement,3  counterfeiting 
United  States  currency,4  passing  counterfeit  United  States  currency,5    and  making  a  false 
statement  to  a  federal  investigator,6  all  violations  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice 
(UCMJ).    The  CO  told  the  applicant  that  due  to  the  serious  nature  of  the  offenses,  he  was 
initiating  the  administrative  discharge  without  a  probationary  period.    The  applicant  was 
informed that he could submit a written statement in his own behalf, that he could disagree with 
the  CO’s  recommendation  and  his  rebuttal  would  be  forwarded  with 
the  discharge 
recommendation, and that he could consult with a lawyer.   
 
 
requested an opportunity to consult with military counsel.   
 
 
The applicant submitted an undated letter in response to the proposed discharge in which 
he  requested  an  honorable  discharge  and  a  RE-1  (eligible  for  reenlistment)  reenlistment  code.  
The  applicant  stated  in  his  letter  that  other  than  the  court-martial,  he  had  no  other  disciplinary 
actions during the six years he had been in the Coast Guard.  He noted the good he had done by 
assisting  with  youth  sports,  volunteering  to  participate  in  various  educational  programs, 
participating  in  Habitat  for  Humanity  projects,  and  installing  new  play  ground  equipment  at  a 
local  academy.      The  applicant  stated  that  he  needed  an  honorable  discharge  so  that  he  could 
retain his MGIB benefits.  He also requested an RE-1 reenlistment code so that he could serve in 
the military again.   
 

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

                                                 
2    This  conviction  was  for  hiding  the  automobile  of  an  individual  who  was  wanted  by  the  authorities  for  the 
attempted possession of cocaine. 
3 This conviction for was telling a special agent that he never gave counterfeit currency to anyone, when he knew the 
statement was false.   
4 This conviction was for counterfeiting currency. 
5 This conviction was for passing, with intent to defraud, counterfeit currency. 
6  This  conviction  was  for  stating  to  a  federal  investigator  that  he  had  printed  counterfeit  currency  on  a  personal 
computer  owned  by  his  in-laws,  when  in  fact  he  had  printed  the  counterfeit  currency  on  his  computer  in  his  own 
home.   

 

 

  

On  November  7,  2005,  the  CO  asked  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
 
(CGPC)  to  discharge  the  applicant  by  reason  on  misconduct  due  to  his  conviction  at  a  special 
court-martial.  The CO stated that due to the seriousness of  the offenses of which the applicant 
was convicted, he should be discharged with a general discharge.  The CO stated that he did not 
desire to  retain the applicant  until  his  scheduled end of enlistment  on April 1, 2006 because of 
the administrative and managerial burden such retention would create.   
 
On November 18, 2005, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard 
 
with a general discharge by reason of misconduct.  CGPC directed that the applicant be assigned 
separation code JKN.  The applicant was discharged on December 19, 2005.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) Decision 
 
 
On  May  20,  2008,  the  applicant  asked  the  DRB  to  review  his  discharge  to  upgrade  his 
discharge to honorable and his reenlistment code to RE-1.  On August 27, 2008, the DRB denied 
the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge and RE-1 reenlistment code.  The decision was 
approved on June 2, 2009.  
 
Applicant’s Performance Record 
 
 
The  applicant’s  performance  marks  averaged  a  4.2  in  leadership,  4.2  in  professional 
qualities, 4.2 performance, and 4.0 in military behavior on a scale of 1 to 7.  The special court-
martial conviction is the only disciplinary action in his record.  A page 7 notes that he had one 
alcohol  incident  during  his  active  duty  career.    His  DD  214  shows  that  he  earned  the  Good 
Conduct  Award  (for  the  period  ending  February  11,  2002),  a  Team  Commendation,  the  Coast 
Guard Unit Commendation Award, the Commandant’s Letter of Commendation, the Global War 
on  Terrorism  Service  Medal,  the  National  Defense  Service  Medal,  and  the  Coast  Guard  Pistol 
Marksmanship Ribbon.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  7,  2010,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  office  of  the  Judge 
Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard.  The JAG concurred with the comments provided 
by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC), which were attached as an enclosure to the 
advisory opinion.  
 
 
PSC noted that the application was timely  and stated his agreement with the findings of 
the DRB that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  PSC stated that the applicant 
did not challenge the DRB proceedings or allege that the proceedings were unjust.   
 
PSC  concurred  with  the  findings  of  the  DRB  in  their  entirety.    He  noted  that  the  Coast 
 
Guard is presumptively correct and the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice 
with regard to his record.   
 
 
  
 

 

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  May  11,  2010,  the  Board  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  and 

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

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  12.B.2.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  sole  criterion  on  which  the  Coast 
 
Guard  characterizes  service  in  the  current  enlistment  or  period  of  service  is  the  member’s 
military  record  during  that  enlistment,  period  of  service,  or  any  term  extension  the  law  or  the 
Commandant prescribes or the member consents to.   
 
 
Article 12.B.2.f. of the Personnel Manual states, “The Service will not necessarily deny a 
member  an  honorable  discharge  solely  for  a  specific  number  of  courts-martial  convictions  or 
actions under Article 15, UCMJ during his or her current enlistment or obligated service.”  Also, 
After June 30, 1983, to be eligible for an honorable discharge a member must have “a minimum 
characteristic  average  of  2.5  in  each  factor  over  the  period  of  the  enlistment.”    This  section 
further states that a member who is discharged because of misconduct is eligible for an honorable 
discharge,  depending  on  that  member’s  proper  military  behavior  and  proficient  performance  of 
duty with consideration for his or her age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.   
 
 
misconduct, a member may be given general discharge. 
 
 
misconduct because of “[d]iscreditable involvement with civil or military authorities.  
 
 
Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  commanding  officers’  (COs)  must 
afford  a  member  a  reasonable  probationary  period  to  overcome  deficiencies  before  initiating 
administrative  action  in  cases  of  frequent  discreditable  involvement  with  civil  or  military 
authorities.  The provision further provides that CO’s “are authorized to recommend discharge at 
any time during the probation if the member is not making an effort to overcome the deficiency.”   
 

Article  12.B.2.f.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  depending  on  the  severity  of  the 

Article  12.B.18.b.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  a  discharge  by  reason  of 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

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

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

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

2.  Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board must be 
filed within three years after the applicant  discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the 
alleged  error  or  injustice.    Although  the  applicant  in  this  case  filed  his  application  more  than 
three years after he knew or should have known of the alleged error on his discharge form, DD 
214,  he  filed  it  within  three  years  of  the  decision  of  the  Discharge Review Board, which has a 

 

  

fifteen-year statute of limitations.  Therefore, under Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 
743 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the application is considered timely. 

 
 
3.  Although at the time of the applicant’s discharge he had over six years of active duty, 
he  was  still  serving  in  his  first  enlistment.    His  record  reveals  that  the  special  court-martial 
convictions for being an accessory after the fact, making a false official statement, counterfeiting 
United States currency, passing counterfeit United States currency, and making a false statement 
to  a  federal  investigator,  are  the  only  disciplinary  proceedings  in  his  record.    His  performance 
marks  over  the  course  of  his  career  averaged  above  the  2.5  necessary  to  be  eligible  for  an 
honorable discharge.  He also had one alcohol incident in 2004.   
 
4.    Article  12.B.18  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  the  Coast  Guard  to  discharge  a 
 
member  for  misconduct  whose  involvement  with  civil  or  military  authorities  is  discreditable.  
The  applicant’s  crimes  of  making  false  official  statements,  counterfeiting  and  passing  United 
States currency, and being an accessory after the fact to a crime, were acts that placed the Coast 
Guard,  as  well  as  the  applicant,  in  an  unfavorable  light.    Therefore  the  Board  finds  that  the 
applicant  could  be  processed  for  separation  under  Article  12.B.18  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
However, members being discharged for this reason are to be placed on probation and given an 
opportunity  to  overcome  their  deficiencies.7    With  the  approval  of  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command (CGPC), he was discharged without a probationary period.  While Article 
12.B.18.c.  gives  the  Coast  Guard  the  right  to  discharge  members  “at  any  time  during  the 
probation  if  the  member  is  not  making  an  effort  to  overcome  the  deficiency”  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  CO,  it  does  not  give  the  Coast  Guard  the  authority  to  ignore  the 
probationary period requirement all together.  Therefore, the Coast Guard committed an error by 
not placing the applicant on probation.   
 
 
5.  However, the Board finds that even if the applicant had been placed on probation (his 
expiration  of  enlistment  was  April  1,  2006,  and  he  was  discharged  on  December  19,  2005)  he 
would still have received a general discharge under honorable conditions upon discharge.  Article 
12.B.2.f.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  depending  on  the  severity  of  the  misconduct,  a 
member may be given general discharge.  In this regard, the Board notes that the CO described 
the  applicant’s  offenses  as  serious  and  in  conflict  with  the  Coast  Guard’s  core  values.    The 
Personnel  Manual  also  states  that  the  issuance  of  an  honorable  discharge  depends  on  proper 
military  behavior  and  proficient  performance  of  duty  with  due  consideration  to  age,  length  of 
service,  and  general  aptitude.    The  applicant’s  performance  marks  indicated  that  he  performed 
well,  except  for  an  occasional  low  mark  contemporaneous  with  the  commission  of  his 
misconduct and the alcohol incident. However, the crimes of which he was convicted shows that 
he engaged in serious criminal conduct.  At the time he committed the offenses, the applicant had 
been on active duty for approximately  five years and was approximately 26 years old.  He was 
old enough and had been in the Service long enough that his criminal acts cannot be attributed to 
youthful indiscretion.  
 
 
6.  The applicant’s chain of command determined that he was not entitled to an honorable 
discharge because of the severity of the offenses for which he was convicted at a special court-
martial. While the applicant had the overall average marks in each factor that were necessary for 

                                                 
7 Nothing in the military record shows that the applicant was placed on probation.   

 

  

an honorable discharge, that fact alone does not persuade the Board that the general discharge is 
erroneous given the nature of the offenses of which he was convicted at special court-martial.   
 
 
reasons discussed above, the applicant’s misconduct supports the RE-4 reenlistment code.  
 
 

7.    The  applicant  also  asked  to  have  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code  upgraded.    For  the 

8.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

  

ORDER 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 
record is denied.