DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-223 
 
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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application on August 2, 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). 

 
This  final  decision,  dated  May  19,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  on  March  22,  1993,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his discharge form, DD 214, to show that he was discharged as a marine science techni-
cian, second class (MST2/pay grade E-5), instead of a seaman apprentice marine science techni-
cian (SAMST/pay grade E-2), and that he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code (eligible to 
reenlist), instead of an RE-4 (ineligible).   
 
The applicant stated that MST2/E-5 was the highest rate  and pay  grade  he held in the 
 
Coast Guard but that his rate and pay grade were reduced pursuant to the sentence of a court-
martial.    The  applicant  alleged  that  prior  to  the  incident  that  resulted  in  a  court-martial,  his 
conduct and performance were exceptional and he had received several citations and commenda-
tions. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he was tried and punished by court-martial because he drove a 
Government vehicle with two subordinates as passengers away from his office’s area of respon-
sibility and totaled it.  Then, he “was not truthful during the investigation” because he was trying 
to hide the involvement of one of his subordinates, who was newly married and expecting his 
first child.  He stated that he was convicted of destruction of Government property, interfering 
with an investigation, and making false statements under oath.   
 

The applicant stated that his misconduct showed that he was a very immature young man 
at the time but that over the past 20 years he has matured and become a successful business man 
with a wonderful family.  He stated that he volunteers in his community and strives to teach his 
children to make good decisions and be accountable for their actions.  He stated that he is asking 
the Board to restore his rating and pay grade and to upgrade his reenlistment code out of pride 
because “the years of constructive, value-added service [he gave to his] country were discredited 
by a few, stupid acts that [he regrets] making.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted for four years on September 26, 1988, at age 18.  He advanced to 
MST3 on July 27, 1990, and the MST2 on January 1, 1992.  His performance evaluations were 
good up until the spring of 1992 and he received a few commendations and awards.  On April 6, 
1992, when he had been ordered to take a Government vehicle to inspect a vessel at a dock in 
Paulsboro, New Jersey, the applicant instead drove the Government vehicle to a lake near Med-
ford, New Jersey; drank alcohol with two subordinates; drove the vehicle recklessly at an unsafe 
speed; totaled the vehicle against a tree; conspired to solicit an employee of a towing company to 
claim that the employee had provided the applicant with alcohol after the accident; falsely denied 
the presence of one of his subordinates in the vehicle; and pretended that he had inspected the 
vessel as ordered. 
 

The applicant was charged with many violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ).  His enlistment was extended involuntarily for six months while the charges pended.  
However, he was advised on August 19, 1992, that he would not be recommended for reenlist-
ment once the extension ended and that he had 15 days to appeal this decision by his command-
ing officer (CO).  He appealed his CO’s decision about reenlistment on September 1, 1992, in an 
11-page  letter  to  the  Commandant.    He  argued  that  his  training,  qualifications,  and  record  of 
good performance before April 1992 warranted his retention.  He submitted statements in sup-
port of his retention.  However, his CO recommended denial of the appeal because the applicant 
had falsely sworn at a mast that one of the subordinates was not in the car and that he and the 
other subordinate had drunk just a couple of beers each at lunch, whereas “the three of them had 
shared  a  case  of  beer  just  before  the  accident.”    The  CO  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been 
stopped for speeding on November 7, 1991, after consuming “a few beers” and that the police 
officer had delivered the applicant directly to the command instead of charging him with driving 
under the influence.  The District Commander also recommended that the applicant’s appeal be 
denied.  On November 6, 1992, the Commandant advised the command that no action would be 
taken on this matter until the disciplinary proceedings were complete. 

 
At  a  trial  by  special  court-martial  on  November  10,  1992,  the  applicant  pled  guilty  to 
several charges and was found guilty on eight counts, including conspiracy, making false official 
statements,  unauthorized  absence,  and  misappropriation  and  negligent  destruction  of  Govern-
ment property.  His sentence included confinement for four months; a $1,000 fine; forfeiture of 
$300 pay per month for four months; and reduction in rate and pay  grade from MST3/E-5 to 
SAMST/E-2.  The convening authority reduced his period of confinement to 70 days. 

 

On December 3, 1992, the applicant’s CO informed the Commandant that on November 
10, 1992, “it was discovered that a significant amount of historical data had been deleted from a 
program and workstation at this unit.  Backup disks for this data were inexplicably overwritten. 
… CCGD5 (ole) is currently conducting an investigation. … The evidence to date indicates that 
[the applicant] is the primary suspect in this destruction of government property case.” 

 
On January 4, 1993, the CO informed the Commandant that the report of the investiga-
tion  into  the  loss  of  data  “indicates  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  pursue  disciplinary  action 
against [the applicant]. … If the member will be discharged in the near future, I do not intend to 
pursue disciplinary action.” 

 
On January 14, 1993, the Commandant denied the applicant’s appeal of his CO’s deci-

sion not to recommend him for reenlistment. 

 
On February 16, 1993, the CO sought permission from the Commandant to discharge the 
applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard,  and  on  February  25,  1993,  the  Commandant  approved  the 
request.    The  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  March  22, 
1993, and his DD 214 states that his discharge was for the “convenience of the government.”  
His DD 214 also shows that he received an RE-4 reenlistment code and that he was discharged 
as a SAMST in pay grade E-2. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 17, 2010, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis provided 
in a memorandum submitted by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).  
 
 
PSC stated that the application is untimely and should be denied on that basis.  However, 
regarding the merits of the case, PSC stated that in light of the applicant’s offenses under the 
UCMJ, his honorable discharge with a JND separation code1 and an RE-4 reenlistment code was 
appropriate and is still correct under today’s standards.  PSC stated that the applicant’s guilty 
plea to violating Article 111 of the UCMJ is akin to a guilty plea to driving under the influence 
of alcohol and that Coast Guard regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 when a member is 
being  discharged  under  such  circumstances.    PSC  concluded  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to 
substantiate any error or injustice in his record. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 9, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the 
Coast Guard.  The applicant stated that the rate, pay grade, and reenlistment code shown on his 
DD 214 have weighed on him for many years, and he is still embarrassed about the conduct that 
led to his discharge, and it would give him peace of mind if his military record were corrected to 
reflect the positive aspects of his years of service. 

                                                 
1  The  JND  separation  code  denotes  an  involuntary  discharge  for  “miscellaneous/general  reasons.”  Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 2-64. 

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 12.B.12. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted personnel to be 
discharged at the convenience of the Government for a number of reasons, including when the 
Commandant so directs for good and sufficient reasons. 
 
Under the Separation Program Designator Handbook, a member involuntarily discharged 
 
for miscellaneous reasons under Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual may receive either an 
RE-4 or RE-1 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. 

 
3. 

 
5. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the date the appli-
cant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged error in his record.2  The appli-
cant was discharged in 1993 and knew that he had been reduced in rate and assigned an RE-4 at 
that time.  Therefore, his application was not timely filed. 

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 (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.”3  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.”4   
 
 
The applicant did not justify his long delay in requesting correction of his record.  
However, his request does not depend upon an allegation of error but on a plea for clemency 
based upon the passage of time and his post-service conduct. 

4. 

The Board’s cursory review indicates that the applicant’s case cannot prevail on 
the merits.  The applicant submitted no evidence to support his claim of exemplary post-service 
conduct.  Even if he had done so, however, post-discharge conduct alone is not a proper basis for 
correcting a record.5  The applicant received an honorable discharge despite his offenses, and the 
                                                 
2 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
3 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
4 Id. at 164-65; see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 
5 See Memorandum of the General Counsel to J. Warner Mills, et al., Board for Correction of Military Records (July 
8, 1976) (instructing the Board with respect to upgrading discharges that it should not upgrade them based on the 
veterans’  post-discharge  conduct  alone  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 disproportionately severe vis-à-vis 
the conduct in response to which it was imposed.” 

Board finds insufficient grounds in the record to justify upgrading his reenlistment code or to 
grant clemency on the reduction in rate from MST2 to SAMST, which he received as part of his 
sentence.   

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

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

 
6. 

 

 
 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Frank E. Howard 

 

 

 

 
 
 Jennifer A. Mehaffey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of his military record is denied.