DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-159 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 

 

 
 

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  April  24,  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  January  13,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  discharge  under 
honorable conditions (commonly referred to as a general discharge) to an honorable discharge.   
He  also  requested  a  change  in  his  JKK  separation  code,  which  means  that  the  applicant  was 
involuntarily discharged because of misconduct/drug abuse.   
 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 26, 2001 and was discharged on April 
7, 2005, under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to involvement with drugs.  He 
was assigned an RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code and a JKK (misconduct/drug 
abuse) separation code.  
 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that the JKK separation code does not apply in his case because 
none of his alleged misconduct occurred on a military installation or during his duty hours.  He 
stated that any alleged misconduct occurred on his off duty time away from his employment.  He 
stated  that  he  was  never  charged  or  convicted  of  any  misconduct  from  the  local  police.    He 
quoted the following with regard to the JKK separation code: 
 

[It]  is  assigned  when  there  is  an  involuntary  discharge  directed  by  established 
directive (no board entitlement) when a  member who commits drug abuse, which 

is illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale, transfer or introduction on a 
military  installation  of  any  narcotic  substance,  intoxicating    inhaled  substance, 
marijuana,  or  controlled  substance,  as  established  by  21  USC  812,  when 
supported by evidence not attributed to urinalyses administered for identification 
of  drug  abusers  or  to  a  member’s  volunteering  for  treatment  under  the  drug 
identification treatment program. 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 26, 2001.  At that time, he signed an 

 

 

administrative remarks (page 7) entry, which advised him of the following: 
 

I have been advised that the illegal use or possession of drugs constitutes a serious 
breach  of  discipline  [,]  which  will  not  be  tolerated.    Also,  illegal  drug  use  or 
possession is counter to esprit de corps & mission performance and jeopardizes 
safety.  No member will use, possess, or distribute illegal drugs, drug parapherna-
lia or hemp oil products.  I also understand that upon reporting to recruit training, 
I will be tested by urinalysis for the presence of illegal drugs.  If my urine test 
detects the presence of illegal drugs I may be subject to discharge and receive a 
general discharge.  
 
 
 
On February 16, 2005, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant 
that he had initiated action to discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard based on the results 
of a CGIS investigation that found that the applicant was involved in illegal activity related to 
drugs and drug trafficking between October 2004 and November 2004, which constituted a drug 
incident.1  The  CO  advised  the  applicant  that  the  decision  to  provide  him  with  a  general  or 
honorable  discharge  rested  with  the  Commandant.  The  applicant  was  advised  that  he  could  
submit a statement in his own behalf and disagree with the proposed discharge and that he could 
consult with a military lawyer at government expense.   
 
 
On February 16, 2005, the applicant signed a statement in which he acknowledged that he 
had read and understood the discharge notification; that he understood that anything less than an 
honorable discharge could deprive him of some or all Department of Veterans Affairs’ benefits; 
 that he wanted to submit a statement; and that he wanted to consult with military counsel. 
 
 
On February 25, 2005, the applicant's CO recommended that Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  discharge  the  applicant  based  upon  a  CGIS  investigation  that 
found that the applicant was involved in trafficking in illegal narcotics on at least one occasion in 
October 2004.  The CO stated that the applicant actively sought to connect a known drug dealer 
with  potential  customers,  to  include  Coast  Guard  members  and  their  families  in  government 
leased housing.  The CO stated that even though there was no evidence that the applicant himself 
                                                 
1   Chapter 20 of the Personnel Manual defines a drug incident as intentional drug abuse, wrongful possession of, or 
trafficking in drugs.  This definition further states that a civil or military conviction for wrongful use, possession, 
etc., of controlled substances is prima facie evidence of a drug incident.  The member need not be found guilty at 
court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment for the behavior to be considered a drug 
incident.   

 

 

 

actually distributed illegal drugs, his actions were so contrary to the values of the service and its 
law enforcement mission, that he had determined that that the applicant’s actions as described in 
the CGIS investigation constituted a drug incident.  The CO noted that after consulting with a 
military lawyer on February 17, 2005, the applicant decided not to make a written statement, and 
verbally indicated that he did not intend to contest the discharge.   
 

On  February  26,  2005,  the  applicant  signed  another  acknowledgement  and  election 
statement, declining the opportunity to submit a statement and requesting to consult with military 
counsel.    
 
  
 
On  March  8,  2005,  CGPC  directed  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general 
discharge by reason of misconduct due to involvement with drugs under Article 12.B.18. of the 
Personnel Manual and be assigned JKK as the separation code.   
 
 
discharge.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
 

On  April  7,  2005,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  general 

Prior to filing his application with the  Board, the applicant applied to the DRB for an 
upgrade of his discharge, a change to the narrative reason for discharge  (misconduct), and  an 
upgrade to his RE-4 reenlistment code.  The DRB denied relief.  On November 10, 2009, the 
Commandant approved the DRB’s decision not to make any changes to the applicant’s record.     

 
According  to  the  DRB  report,  the  applicant  appeared  in  person  before  the  DRB 
accompanied by his father.  The applicant provided sworn testimony before the DRB and was 
questioned on the contents of the CGIS investigation.   The DRB stated the following: 
 

The applicant admitted to CGIS investigators that he had solicited others to buy 
illegal  drugs.    The  applicant  admitted  to  Board  members  that  his  confession  to 
CGIS was truthful.  The applicant agreed with the [CO’s] determination that this 
was a drug incident.  The applicant’s admission to soliciting others to purchase 
illegal drugs on behalf of a third party is tantamount to trafficking by materially 
participating in the distribution of illegal drugs.  The Crux of the government’s 
case  is  that  this  was  a  drug  incident.    The  applicant  presented  no  compelling 
evidence to dissuade the Board otherwise.  
 

 
The Board members did uncover an administrative oversight with regard to the 
DD 214.  Block 24 needs to be corrected to read Under Honorable Conditions.2  
The assignment of SPD Code JKK is appropriate as is the narrative reason.   

  # 

 

# 

 

#   

                                                 
2  The DRB corrected block 24 (character of service) of the DD 214 to read under honorable conditions 
which  is  the  character  of  service  instead  of  general.    This  type  of  discharge  and  character  of  service  is 
commonly referred to as a general discharge under honorable conditions.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 19, 2010, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General (JAG), recommending that the Board deny the applicant's request for relief.  The JAG 
adopted the facts and analysis provided by Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC), which 
was attached as enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.  PSC concurred with the findings of the 
DRB in their entirety.  PSC noted that the Coast Guard is presumptively correct and the applicant 
had failed to substantiate any error or injustice in his military record.   

 

  

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 24, 2010, a copy of the Coast Guard view was mailed to the applicant for a 

 
 
response.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.   
 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
 
 

Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

Involvement with Drugs.  Any member involved in a drug incident or the illegal, 
wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or  introduction  onto  military 
installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard 
with no higher than a general discharge . . . 

Article  20.A.2.K. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

 

 

 

This provision of the Personnel Manual defines a drug incident as intentional drug abuse, 
wrongful  possession  of,  or  trafficking  in  drugs.    This  definition  further  states  that  a  civil  or 
military  conviction  for  wrongful  use,  possession,  etc.,  of  controlled  substances  is  prima  facie 
evidence of a drug incident.  The member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian 
court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment for the behavior to be considered a drug incident.   
 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 

Section  two  of  the  SPD  Handbook  authorizes  only  the  assignment  of  an  RE-4 
reenlistment  code  for  the  JKK  separation  code.    The  SPD  Handbook  states  that  the  JKK 
separation code is appropriate when there is an "[i]nvoluntary discharge directed by established 
directive  (no  board  entitlement)  when  a  member  commits  drug  abuse,  which  is  the  illegal, 
wrongful or improper use, possession, sale, transfer or introduction on a military installation of 
any  narcotic  substance  …  as  established  by  21  USC  812,  when  supported  by  evidence  not 
attributed  to  urinalyses  administered  for  identification  of  drug  abusers  or  to  a  member’s 
volunteering for treatment under the drug identification and treatment program.” 

 

 
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
submissions and military record, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law: 
 

1.  The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10  United 
States  Code.    The  application  was  timely.    An  applicant  has  fifteen  years  from  the  date  of 
discharge to apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The 
applicant  was  required  to  exhaust  his  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  DRB  before 
filing an application with the Board.  See 33 CFR § 52.13.  According to Ortiz v. Secretary of 
Defense, 41 F. 3rd. 738 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the BCMR’s three year statute of limitations begins to 
run  at  the  conclusion  of  DRB  proceedings  for  an  applicant  who  is  required  to  exhaust 
administrative remedies.   The DRB issued a final decision on November 10, 2009.  Therefore, 
the applicant's BCMR application received by the Board on March 29, 2010 was timely. 
 

2.   The applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice 
in  discharging  him  with  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  for  involvement  in  a 
drug incident.  Article 12.B.18.b.4.a. of the Personnel Manual states that any member “involved 
in  a  drug  incident  or  the  illegal,  wrongful,  or  improper  sale,  transfer,  manufacture,  or 
introduction onto military installation of any drug . . . will be processed for separation from the 
Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.” Article 20.A.2.k. of the Personnel Manual 
states that a member need not be found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded 
NJP for such conduct to be considered a drug incident.  

 
3.    According  to  the  DRB,  the  applicant  admitted  to  CGIS  investigators  that  he  had 
solicited  others  to  buy  illegal  drugs.    The  DRB  found  the  applicant’s  admission  to  be  a  drug 
incident because it was “tantamount to trafficking, by materially participating in the distribution 
of illegal drugs.”   The Board agrees with the DRB that the applicant’s actions constituted a drug 
incident.  

 
4.      The  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the  JKK  separation  code  is  in  error  because  the 
applicant’s misconduct allegedly occurred on his off duty time and away from his employment. 
According to the SPD handbook, the JKK applies not only when illegal drugs are introduced on 
a military installation, but also when there is the illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, 
sale or transfer of drugs.  There is no limitation on where an illegal, wrongful or improper use, 
possession, sale or transfer of drugs must occur to be classified as a drug incident.  As the DRB 
stated, according to the investigative report, the applicant was trafficking in (selling) drugs and 
the CO found that his misconduct constituted a drug incident.  Article 20.A.2.K. of the Personnel 
Manual  defines  a  drug  incident  as  the  intentional  drug  abuse,  wrongful  possession  of,  or 
trafficking in drugs.      Moreover, according to the CO, the CGIS investigative report indicated 
that the applicant was attempting to connect members of the Coast Guard and their families who 
lived in Coast Guard housing with known drug dealers.   

 

5.  The fact that the applicant was off-duty when his misconduct occurred is not relevant 
to  the  finding  of  whether  he  was  involved  in  a  drug  incident  because  an  active  duty  service 
member is subject to the jurisdiction of the military twenty-four hours per day, seven days per 
week.     
  
6.  The  applicant  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  case.  Accordingly,  relief 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
should be denied.  
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer