DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-138 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 upon receipt of 
the applicant’s completed  application on March 19, 2010, and subsequently prepared the final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated December 30, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by changing his RE-4 (not eligible to 
reenlist)  reenlistment  code  to  RE-1  (eligible  for  reenlistment)  and/or  to  change  his  separation 
code  to  reflect  “the  changeable  condition  of  citizenship”  so  that  he  can  enlist  in  the  Army 
Reserve.   
 
 
On August 19, 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of expiration of 
enlistment with a KBK (voluntary discharge upon the expiration of enlistment) separation code 
and the RE-4 reenlistment code.  At the time of his discharge, he had served for four years in the 
Coast Guard.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  was  assigned  solely  because  he 
was  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.    He  argued  that  the  RE-4 
reenlistment  code  does  not  reflect  the  quality  of  his  performance  while  on  active  duty.    He 
asserted that the RE-4 code is unjust and prejudicial because the DD 214 is used by local, state, 
and the  federal  government.  He stated that  citizenship is not a requirement to join the Army 
reserve and that the RE-4 reenlistment code is the only issue blocking his enlistment in the Army 
Reserve.   The  applicant  submitted  documents  from  an Army  recruiter  stating  that  he  was  not 
eligible to apply for enlistment in the Army because of the RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 

 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on February 19, 2010, and that it 
is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider the applicantion even if it has been more 
than  three  years  since  he  discovered  the  error  because  he  was  an  honorable  and  contributing 
member of the Coast Guard, and he will be a contributing member of the Army Reserve.  He 
stated that he deserved the chance to continue to serve the United States.  Because of his age, he 
stated that he had to enlist by his birthday in May 2010.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  7,  2010,  the  Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief.  The JAG attached comments 
from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) as a part of the advisory opinion.  PSC 
stated  that  the  application  should  be  denied  because  it  was  untimely.    However,  if  the  Board 
waives the untimeliness, PSC stated the following: 
 

[According to an administrative remarks page (page7)], “Follow-up reenlistment 
interview  conducted  this  date  .  .  .  Member  advised  he  is  not  recommended  for 
reenlistment as initially counseled on February 23, 1988.  Member is not a U.S. 
citizen, and therefore cannot reenlist.  He is assigned reenlistment code RE-4 for 
this reason.  Member states his intentions are not to seek reenlistment. 
 
According  to  [the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook],  the  most 
appropriate  separation  for  the  applicant  should  have  been  JCP  .  .  .  for 
“Involuntary discharge directed by established directives . . . when a member is 
not a citizen of the United States or fails to complete naturalization procedures.  
For this separation code, a reentry code of either RE-3A or RE-4 is authorized.   
 
According to ALCOAST 125/10, updated guidance . . . stipulates for separation 
code JCP, a reentry code of RE-3 is default. 
 
In accordance with today’s policy, the applicant would have been discharged with 
a separation code of JCP and a reentry code of RE-3.     

PSC recommended that a DD 215 be issued correcting block 26 of the DD 214 to read 

 
 
JCP and block 27 to read RE-3.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August  14,  2010,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard.  The applicant restated the position taken in his basic application.  He stated that he 
disputes the Coast Guard’s opinion and sees no discussion or reason why the RE-4 cannot be 
changed to RE-1.  He stated that ALCOAST 125/10 states that “RE codes provide a mechanism 
for  categorizing  reenlistment  eligibility  based  upon  the  individual’s  reason  for  discharge  and 
their  service  record.”    The  applicant  offered  following:  “Even  though  it  is  not  standard,  the 
opinion  could  have  come  up  with  the  conclusion  of  KBK/RE-3A  if  they  were  inclined  to 
consider my service record.”   

 

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 section 1552 of title 

1. 

10 of the United States Code.  

 
 
2.    The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military  record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or  should 
have discovered the alleged error or injustice.  See 33 CFR 52.22.   The applicant claimed that he 
did not discover the alleged error until February 19, 2010.  However, he should have discovered 
it at the time of discharge because the RE-4 reenlistment code is written on his DD 214.  His 
signature  is  also  on  the  DD  214.    Therefore  his  application  was  submitted  approximately 
nineteen years beyond the statute of limitations.   The applicant argued that it is in the interest of 
justice to waive any untimeliness because he was an honorable and contributing member of the 
Coast Guard.  However, his reason does not explain why he could not have filed his application 
sooner.   
   

3.      The  Board  may  still  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  if  it  finds  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  in  assessing  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 stated 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, 165.  

 
4.   Notwithstanding the Board’s finding 2 above, a cursory review of the merits reveals 
that  there  is  an  error  on  the  applicant’s  DD  214  that  is  potentially  prejudicial  and  should  be 
corrected.  Therefore, the Board will waive the untimeliness in the interest of justice so that the 
applicant’s DD 214 can be corrected to accurately depict his reenlistment code.  In this regard, 
the JAG argued that the KBK separation code currently on the DD 214 is incorrect and stated 
that  JCP  is  the  correct  separation  code  according  to  the  SPD  handbook.    JCP  means  that  the 
applicant’s discharge was involuntary and directed by established directives because he was not 
a  citizen  the  United  States  and  failed  to  complete  the  naturalization  process.    However,  the 
applicant disagrees with changing his separation code and argues that expiration of enlistment 
was the reason for his discharge.  According to the DD 214, he completed his four years of active 
duty.    The  Board  will  not  change  the  separation  code  to  JCP  because  he  was  not  discharged 
because of his alien status, although he was prohibited from reenlisting because of it.    

 
5.  The Board agrees with the applicant that the only reason he was given the RE-4 was 
because he was not a citizen of the United States at the time of his discharge.  Therefore, the 
Board will correct the applicant’s reenlistment code to RE-3A (alien).   

 

6.    The  applicant  is  not  entitled  to  an  RE-1,  which  means  eligible  for  reenlistment, 
because Articles 1.G.5.1.5. and 12.B.4.a. of the Personnel Manual state that an alien who fails to 
become a naturalized citizen is not eligible to reenlist in the Coast Guard.  The applicant has 
offered no evidence that he was a naturalized citizen at the time of discharge.  Nor has he offered 
any evidence that he is currently a naturalized citizen.    

 
7.  With regard to the Army Reserve, an RE-3A is not an absolute bar to reenlistment.  It 
means  that  the  applicant  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  in  the  armed  service,  except  for  the 
disqualifying factor of being an alien. The Army Reserve has the option of waiving the RE-3A 
reenlistment code and enlisting the applicant.   

 

 
8.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the partial relief discussed above.   
 
  
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

record is granted in part as follows: 
 

Block 27 of his DD 214 shall be corrected to show reenlistment code RE-3A. 
 
No other relief is granted.  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton