DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-131 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed application on March 11, 2010, 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 November 18, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

On October 8, 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Reserve under the delayed entry pro-
gram.    On  March  22,  1994,  he  enlisted  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard  and  began  basic  training.  
Upon  examination  on  March  24,  1994,  a  dentist  reported  that  five  of  the  applicant’s  teeth 
required  extraction; that ten other teeth were  carious; that four of these carious teeth required 
endodontic intervention; that another tooth had already undergone a root canal and needed exten-
sive  restoration  or  extraction;  and  that  he  had  generalized  gingivitis  and  continuing  poor  oral 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  on  March  30,  1994,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct the reenlistment code and separation code on his DD 214.  His DD 214 currently shows 
an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means that he is ineligible to reenlist, and a JFC separation 
code, which denotes an involuntary discharge when the individual was erroneously enlisted.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that he was discharged for having too many cavities in his teeth.  
He alleged that he has had his cavities corrected and would like to serve his country by joining 
the Army.  He stated that he did not seek a correction earlier because following his discharge he 
began a career in criminal justice. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

On August 5, 1992, the applicant underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination.  The 

 
 
doctor listed his dental condition as acceptable. 
 

hygiene.    A  medical  board  convened  and  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  administratively 
discharged  because  of  his  pre-existing  dental  problems.    The  applicant  was  informed  of  the 
board’s findings and of the proposed discharge and elected not to submit a written statement. 

 
On  March  30,  1994,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged.    A  Page  7  in  his  record 
shows that he was assigned an RE-3E reenlistment code, which would make him “eligible for 
enlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor.    A  waiver  must  be  obtained  in  order  to  reenlist.”  
However, his DD 214 shows an honorable discharge pursuant to Article 12-B-12 of the Person-
nel Manual with an RE-4 reenlistment code and a JFC separation code. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
 
On June 18, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board grant partial relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted 
the facts and analysis provided by the Personnel Service Center (PSC) in an attached memoran-
dum.  
 
 
The PSC stated that the application was untimely and could be denied due to untimeli-
ness.  The PSC noted, however, that according to the Page 7 in the applicant’s record, he was 
supposed to receive an RE-3E reenlistment code, which would have made him eligible to reenlist 
with a waiver.  Therefore, the PSC recommended that the Board upgrade the applicant’s reenlist-
ment code to RE-3E but not change the separation code, which should “stand as issued.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 20, 2010, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He stated 
 
that he agrees with the recommendation in the advisory opinion to upgrade his reenlistment code 
to RE-3E and to let the separation code remain unchanged.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE LAW 

 

Under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1994, the Coast Guard could 
discharge  members  for  the  convenience  of  the  Government  if  they  had  a  physical  defect  that 
existed prior to their enlistment and was not aggravated by their military service. 

 
Under  the  Separation  Program  Designator  Handbook,  members  who  have  been  erro-
neously enlisted by the Coast Guard may be discharged under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel 
Manual with a JFC separation code and either an RE-3E or RE-4 reenlistment code. 
 

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. 

1. 
   

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 discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant was discharged and received his DD 214 with 
the RE-4 reenlistment code in 1994.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 

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).   

Although the applicant did not justify his delay in seeking the requested correc-
tion of his record, a cursory review of the merits of his claim reveals that the reenlistment code 
on his DD 214 is erroneous.  Therefore, Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to excuse 
the untimeliness of his application. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 

The applicant’s military record shows that he was discharged solely because sig-
nificant dental problems disqualified him for military service at the time.  His record contains no 
evidence  of  disciplinary  or  performance  problems.  Under  the  Separation  Program  Designator 
Handbook, members being discharged for erroneous entry because they were not qualified for 
enlistment  could  be  assigned  either  an  RE-3E  or  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    The  Page  7  dated 
March 30, 1994, in the applicant’s record shows that he was supposed to receive an RE-3E reen-
listment  code,  which  would  have  made  him  eligible  to  reenlist  with  a  waiver  once  his  dental 
problems were fixed.  However, his DD 214 was completed with an RE-4 code, rendering him 
ineligible to reenlist.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that his RE-4 code is erroneous and should be upgraded to an RE-3E. 

The Board notes that the applicant also challenged his separation code, JFC, in his 
application.  However, there is no evidence that this code is erroneous, and it appears to have 
been applied correctly under the regulations.  Therefore, the Board finds that no correction of the 
separation code is warranted. 

Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by upgrading the applicant’s reenlist-

ment code from RE-4 to RE-3E. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 
of his military record is granted in part.  The Coast Guard shall correct his DD 214 to show that 
his reenlistment code in block 27 is RE-3E. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 
 Robert F. Parker