DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-232 
 
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 August 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  May  19,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  changing  her  RE-3B1 

 
 
(parenthood) reenlistment code to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist) so that she can return to the Service.    
The applicant stated that at the time, she had no choice but to request discharge because she was 
the single parent of three small children, with no support system.  She stated that she has been 
remarried for 12 years and that her husband has adopted her children. The last adoption occurred 
in March 2000.  She stated that she has earned a degree in accounting since her discharge.    
 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on September 26, 1989 and was discharged on 
April 19, 1995.  The applicant listed July 10, 2010 as the date she discovered the alleged error.  
She explained that her reenlistment code was not in error, but she wanted it amended so that she 
could reenlist.  In support of her application, she offered her college transcript, marriage license, 
and her children’s adoption decrees.   
 
 
    
 
                                                 
1  RE-3B  means  that  a  member  is  eligible  to  reenlist,  except  for  unavailability  for  worldwide  assignment  due  to 
parenthood.   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On December 17, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  as  recommended  by  the 
Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).  PSC noted that the application was untimely, but 
stated that it should still be considered because of its merits.   
 

On the merits, PSC noted that the applicant’s RE-3B reenlistment code was correct and in 
accordance with policy.  PSC also noted that the reenlistment code is not a bar to reenlistment 
and that the applicant is eligible to reenlist in the Coast Guard.  However, PSC stated that she 
must seek reenlistment through a recruiter and prove “the disqualifying factor has been resolved 
before reenlistment can take place.”   
 

   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 20, 2010, the Board mailed a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 

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

Applicant’s Discharge from the Coast Guard 

 
On March 6, 1995, the applicant requested to be discharged from the Coast Guard due to 
dependency.  On March 9, 1995, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) recommended that the 
Commander,  Military  Personnel  Command  approve  her  request  for  discharge.   The  CO  noted 
that there was no solution readily available except discharge. 

 
On  March  23,  1995,  the  Commander,  Military  Personnel  Command  approved  the 
applicant’s discharge.  The applicant was honorably discharged on April 19, 1995 by reason of 
convenience of the government, with a KDG separation code and a RE-3B reenlistment code.  
The applicant acknowledged receipt of her DD 214 (discharge document) with her signature.   
 

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: 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 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 was discharged 
in 1995 because of parenthood.   Her current husband adopted the last of her children on March 
21,  2000,  which  cured  her  unavailability  for  worldwide  assignment  due  to  parenthood.  
Therefore, the applicant should have filed an application with the Board within 3 years of March 
21, 2000.  She waited another 10 years before filing an application with the Board. Although the 
applicant listed July 10, 2010 as the date she discovered the alleged error, she knew at the time of 

her  discharge  in  1995  that  she  had  an  RE3-B  because  it  was  listed  on  her  DD  214.      The 
applicant has not put forth a persuasive reason why she did not file her application sooner.   
 

3.   However, 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 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, 165.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 
1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 
 

4.      With  respect  to  the  merits,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  stated  that  the 
reenlistment code was not an error.  The Board agrees.  The RE-3B was assigned in accordance 
with Coast Guard policy and accurately describes the reason  for her discharge.  Nor does the 
Board find the RE-3B reenlistment code to be an injustice because it is not a bar to reenlistment.  
The applicant is eligible to reenlist if otherwise qualified and if she can persuade a recruiter that 
her parenthood issue has been resolved.   
 

5.     Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  because  it  is  untimely  and 

because it lacks merit.   
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Frank E. Howard 

 

 

 

 
 
 Jennifer A. Mehaffey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.