DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-188 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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  May  26,  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  March  10,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who received a general discharge “Under Honorable Conditions” from the 
Coast  Guard  on  June  15,  1986,  for  illegal  drug  abuse  and  possession  of  marijuana,  asked  the 
Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  general  discharge  to  honorable.1    The  applicant 
stated that in the Service, he was hoping to attend “A” School to become a marine science tech-
nician (MST), but the school was discontinued.2  Therefore, he decided to leave the Service and 
go to college.  When he asked to be discharged, however, the Service refused to release him even 
though  his  congressman  submitted  a  letter  supporting  his  request.    Moreover,  he  alleged,  his 
command  failed  to  notify  him  that  the  Veterans  Education  Assistance  Program  (VEAP)3  was 
being discontinued and that he needed to sign a Page 7 form in order not to lose the benefit.   
 
                                                 
1  The  5  authorized  types  of  discharge  are  Honorable,  General  “Under  Honorable  Conditions,”  Under  Other  than 
Honorable Conditions, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable.  Bad conduct and dishonorable discharges are only awarded 
by court-martial.  Personnel Manual, Article 12.B.2.c. 
2 MST “A” School still exists, but it is possible sessions were canceled temporarily based on Service needs. 
3 Before July 1, 1985, servicemembers could enroll in VEAP at any time during their active duty service, and money 
deposited by members in a VEAP account was matched two to one by the government. 38 U.S.C. §§ 3201, 3221.  
Members were advised about VEAP during basic training, and there was no requirement that VEAP counseling be 
documented in their records.  However, VEAP expired on June 1, 1985, and members first enlisting on or after July 
1, 1985,  were entitled to benefits under the Montgomery  G.I. Bill (MGIB), instead of  VEAP. 38 U.S.C. § 3001.  
Because members must opt out of MGIB during basic training to avoid automatic enrollment, each member’s MGIB 
election is documented in his record. 

 
The applicant stated that his shipmates told him that he could get a quick general dis-
charge by failing a drug urinalysis or being in possession of marijuana.  Therefore, because the 
Coast Guard would not release him to let him attend college, he “came into possession of some 
marijuana  and  turned  it  in.”    He  stated  that  he  did  not  actually  smoke  any  of  the  marijuana 
because he thought it was harmful and would be dangerous to smoke while aboard the ship.  The 
applicant alleged that after he turned in the marijuana, he underwent urinalysis and the result was 
negative. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he now knows that his actions were foolish, and he has regretted 
them ever since.  He should have sought counseling instead of seeking a general discharge for 
possession of marijuana. 
 
 
The applicant argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to waive the statute 
of  limitations  in  his  case  because  he  has  “been  an  upstanding  citizen  with  no  criminal  record 
since [his] discharge 23 years ago.”  He stated that he has received a college degree, worked for a 
large  company,  been  married  for  21  years,  and  raised  two  children.    His  service  in  the  Coast 
Guard was a great experience, and he has encouraged young people to join. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On April 2, 1984, at 19 years of age, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four 
years as a seaman recruit (SR).  Before he enlisted, he was given an explanation of the Service’s 
drug and alcohol abuse policies and advised that the illegal use or possession of drugs constituted 
a serious breach of military discipline.  After completing basic training and advancing to seaman 
apprentice (SA), the applicant was assigned to a cutter based in Honolulu, Hawaii.   
 

From July 16 to August 4, 1984, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 
his cutter and missed its sailing.  He turned himself in at the port in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  
After being returned to the cutter, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) at a captain’s mast 
on August 26, 1984.  As a result of the NJP, he was reduced in rank from SA to SR, served 45 
days of restriction to the cutter with extra duties, and received very low marks4 on his first per-
formance evaluation.  The applicant also received more training on the Service’s drug and alco-
hol abuse policies on August 20, 1984. 
 

On a performance evaluation dated November 2, 1984, the applicant again received very 
low marks, including a mark of 1 (the lowest mark) in the category Motivation Towards Job and 
a mark of 3 in Conduct.  However, he re-advanced to SA and received mostly average marks on 
his semi-annual evaluations dated April 30, 1985, and October 31, 1985.  On October 25, 1985, 
the  applicant  was  offered  orders  to  attend  Radioman  “A”  School  to  become  a  petty  officer.  
However, he rejected them stating that he did not want to attend “A” School. 

 
On March 20, 1986, the applicant was taken to mast and awarded NJP for having been 
AWOL from March 3 to 7, 1986.  He was reduced in rank back to SR, served 30 days of restric-
tion with extra duties, forfeited $297 in pay per month for two months, and received a perfor-
mance evaluation with very low marks in several categories. 
                                                 
4 Enlisted members are evaluated in a variety of performance categories on a scale of 1 (worst) to 7 (best). 

 
On March 27, 1986, the applicant submitted a request to be discharged.  He wrote that his 
enlistment had disrupted his desire to complete his college education and attend graduate school.  
He noted that he had recently tried to enroll in VEAP and learned that the program had been dis-
continued.    Although  he  had  petitioned  the  Personnel  Records  Review  Board  to  correct  his 
record to reflect enrollment in VEAP, he had not yet received the result of his petition.  He also 
noted that he had requested discharge in early 1985 and that that request had been denied.  The 
applicant  stated  that  he  knew  of  other  members  who  had  gained  their  discharges  by  abusing 
drugs or claiming unsuitability5 but he did “not want to act in a manner which would discredit 
myself or the Coast Guard.  I request discharge because I am confident that my career interests 
lie elsewhere.” 

 
On March 28, 1986, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded his request for 
discharge to the Commandant via the District Commander.  The CO stated that he would prefer 
to have someone else in the billet given the applicant’s lack of motivation.   

 
On April 14, 1986, the applicant broke restriction and went AWOL from 10:50 p.m. until 
5:00 a.m. the next morning. On April 16, 1986, he was found to be in possession of marijuana.  
The charge sheet shows that he gave marijuana to a petty officer in the head (bathroom) of the 
cutter and told different stories about how he had obtained the marijuana. 

 
On  April  17,  1986,  the  District  Commander  forwarded  the  applicant’s  request  for  dis-
charge to the Commandant with a recommendation that it be denied because the applicant “now 
has disciplinary action pending under articles 86 and 92 UCMJ and may be a candidate for dis-
charge under article 12-B-18 [misconduct] of the Personnel Manual.” 

 
On April 23, 1986, the  applicant was taken to  mast and awarded NJP a third time for 
violating restriction, being AWOL, and possessing marijuana aboard the cutter.  He was restrict-
ed to the cutter for another 45 days with extra duties, forfeited $319 in pay per month for four 
months, and received another performance evaluation with very low marks in many categories. 

 
On April 30, 1986, the Commandant disapproved the applicant’s request for release from 

active duty. 

 
On May 7, 1986, the CO notified the applicant that the CO was initiating his discharge 
for  misconduct  because  of  his  involvement  in  a  “drug  incident”  on  April  16,  1986.    The  CO 
advised him that he was recommending the applicant for a general discharge and that the appli-
cant had a right to consult a lawyer and to submit a written statement.  The applicant acknowl-
edged this notification the same day.  He wrote that he had consulted a lawyer and did not wish 
to make a statement. 

 
Also on May 7, 1986, the CO submitted to the Commandant via the District Commander 
his recommendation that the applicant be discharged for misconduct.  He noted that on April 16, 
1986, the applicant had “turned the marijuana over to the ship’s MAA [Master at Arms], admit-
                                                 
5  The  applicant  was  likely  referring  to  the  fact  that  members  claiming,  or  being  discharged  for,  homosexuality 
usually received discharges for “Unsuitability.” 

ting to possessing it onboard the ship and also to prior use of it.  He consented to a drug urinaly-
sis test and results are pending as of this date.”6  The CO also noted that the applicant’s perfor-
mance had deteriorated and that he had become “a burden on the unit and his shipmates.” 

 
On May 20, 1986, the District Commander forwarded the CO’s recommendation to the 
Commandant  and  recommended  that  it  be  approved.    On  June  4,  1986,  the  Commandant 
approved it and issued orders for the applicant to be discharged within 30 days. 

 
On June 11, 1986, the applicant was discharged.  His DD 214 shows that he was dis-
charged “Under Honorable Conditions” by reason of misconduct in accordance with Article 12-
B-18 of the Personnel Manual.  His DD 214 also shows that he did not enroll in VEAP.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 15, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopt-
ed the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel 
Service Center (PSC).  The PSC pointed out that the application is untimely since the applicant 
was discharged in 1986.  The PSC argued that the Board should deny relief because the applicant 
did not deny being involved in a drug incident  and, even under today’s regulations, members 
involved  in  a  drug  incident  may  receive  no  higher  than  a  general  discharge  Under  Honorable 
Conditions.  The PSC stated that the applicant’s record “is presumptively correct, and the Appli-
cant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice” in his record. 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 19, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Under Article 12-B-18.b.(4) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1986, the Commandant 

 
could separate a member for misconduct due to “drug abuse” as follows:  
 

Drug abuse.  The illegal, wrongful, or improper use, possession, sale transfer, or introduction on a 
military installation of any narcotic substance, intoxicating inhaled substance, marijuana, or con-
trolled substance, as established be 21 U.S.C. 812.  Any member involved in a drug incident will 
be separated from the Coast Guard with no higher than a general discharge.  However, in truly 
exceptional situations, commanding officers may recommend retention of members E-3 an below 
involved in only a single drug incident. 

 
 
Under Article 12-B-18.e.(1), a member with less than eight years of active service who 
was being recommended for a general discharge for misconduct was entitled to (a) be informed 
of the reasons for the recommended discharge, (b) consult an attorney, and (c) submit a state-
ment in his own behalf. 
 
                                                 
6 The urinalysis results are not in the applicant’s record. 

 
 
 
Under Article 20.C. of the current Personnel Manual, any member involved in a “drug 
incident”  must  be  discharged  and  may  be  administratively  discharged  with  no  better  than  a 
general discharge “Under Honorable Conditions.” 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 
The Board finds that the applicant has exhausted his administrative remedies, as required by 33 
C.F.R. § 52.13(b), because there is no other currently available forum or procedure provided by 
the Coast Guard for correcting the alleged error or injustice. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged error in his record.7  The applicant 
seeks an upgrade of his discharge, and he was discharged in 1986.  Therefore, his application is 
untimely. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of an applica-
tion 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.”8   

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The applicant did not explain his delay in seeking an upgrade of his discharge.  
However, his request is based in part on alleged long-term post-service good conduct, as well as 
on alleged injustice.   

The applicant’s March 27, 1986, request for discharge shows that he wanted to 
leave the Service and knew that he could get out by incurring a drug incident or claiming homo-
sexuality but wanted to get out without doing so.  His CO endorsed his request for discharge 
because he was a poor performer with no motivation to serve and forwarded it to the District 
Commander to, in turn, forward it to the Commandant.  However, on April 16, 1986, before the 
District Commander took action on the applicant’s request for discharge, the applicant surren-
dered marijuana to the Master at Arms aboard the cutter and admitted to having possessed and 
used marijuana.  As a result of the applicant’s misconduct, the District Commander forwarded 
the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge with a recommendation that it be disapproved, 
which it was, and the CO initiated the applicant’s general discharge for misconduct.  The record 
also shows that the applicant received due process under Article 12-B-18.e.(1) of the Personnel 
                                                 
7 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b); 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
8 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995). 

Manual in that he was informed of the reason for his proposed general discharge; afforded an 
opportunity to consult an attorney, which he did; and afforded the right to submit a statement on 
his own behalf, which he did not. 

The applicant now regrets having obtained and surrendered the marijuana to gain 
a quick discharge and asks the Board to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.  However, 
the  Board  does  not  believe  that  the  applicant’s  reason  for  revealing  his  possession  of  mari-
juana—gaining  a  quick  discharge—excuses  his  misconduct  or  warrants  a  fully  honorable  dis-
charge.  In this regard, the Board notes that interdiction of marijuana and other illegal drugs is 
one of the Coast Guard’s major missions.  Nor does the applicant’s record of poor conduct and 
work performance while on active duty warrant upgrading his discharge. 

The applicant argued that his discharge should be upgraded in the interest of jus-
tice because he has been “an upstanding citizen with no criminal record” since his discharge.  He 
did not submit evidence to prove his allegations.  However, even if he had done so, it would not 
be grounds for upgrading his discharge because on July 7, 1976, the delegate of the Secretary 
informed the Board by memorandum that it “should not upgrade discharges solely on the basis of 
post-discharge conduct” and “should not upgrade a discharge unless it is convinced, after having 
considered all the evidence … that in light of today’s standards the discharge was disproportion-
ately severe vis-à-vis the conduct in response to which it was imposed.”9  This instruction has 
never been reversed.  Under Article 20.C. of the current Personnel Manual, members discharged 
for  drug  abuse  or  possession  may  receive  no  higher  than  a  general  discharge.    Therefore,  the 
applicant’s general discharge is not disproportionately severe in light of current standards. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum punishment at court-
martial for illegal possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana aboard a Coast Guard cutter is a 
dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for seven years.10  
If the applicant had received such a sentence, the Board would consider the issue of clemency 
because the delegate’s guidance does not prohibit it from exercising clemency even if the dis-
charge was neither disproportionately severe compared to the misconduct, nor clearly inconsis-
tent with today’s Coast  Guard standards.   Such  a construction would be inconsistent with the 
very nature of clemency, which means “mercy or leniency.”11  Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), the 
Board is expressly authorized to grant clemency.  However, the applicant did not receive any-
thing close to the maximum punishment he could have received for his misconduct.  Instead, he 
received a general discharge “Under Honorable Conditions.”  Therefore, clemency is not war-
ranted. 

The applicant complained that he was never informed that  VEAP was expiring 
before it expired and so he was not afforded an opportunity to sign a Page 7 to retain the benefit.  
However, the record indicates that the applicant never enrolled in VEAP, and he did not prove 
that his command was required to have him sign a Page 7 upon the expiration of VEAP.  Under 

                                                 
9 Memorandum of the General Counsel to J. Warner Mills, et al., Board for Correction of Military Records (July 8, 
1976). 
10 MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL UNITED STATES, IV-57 (2008 ed.) (The regular maximum period of confinement 
for the offense is 2 years, but the period is increased by five years when the offense is committed aboard a vessel.). 
11 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 288 (9th ed., 2009). 

the presumption of regularity12 and absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the 
applicant was informed of his right to enroll in VEAP when he enlisted and that his command 
carried out its responsibilities regarding VEAP in accordance with the Commandant’s instruc-
tions.  The applicant has submitted no evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity. 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied.  

 
10. 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
12 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

ORDER 

 

his military record is denied.   
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Megan Gemunder 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis