DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-234 
 
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 24, 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  June  3,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  1984  general  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions for drug abuse to an honorable discharge.1  He alleged that he was told at his “court-
martial that if [he] stayed out of trouble for 6 months after being discharged [he] would be given 
an honorable discharge.”   
 
 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error in his record on July 30, 2010.  He 
argued  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  excuse  his  delay  in  applying  for 
correction because “it’s no more than fair to do what’s right in God’s name.”  He also wrote, “I 
was never told about this matter up until I did a little research on myself.  Only want what’s best 
for me and my family.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On November 16, 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  While in boot camp in 
January 1982, the applicant was advised of the Coast Guard’s drug policies.  His military records 
indicate  that  he  served  without  significant  disciplinary  incidents  until  July  1984,  when  a 
urinalysis  detected  both  cocaine  and  THC,  a  metabolite  of  marijuana,  in  his  urine.    His  THC 
                                                 
1 The five 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. 

level measured 165 ng/ml.  As a result of this drug abuse, the applicant was punished at mast on 
August 10, 1984, with a reduction from pay grade E-3 to E-2 and a forfeiture of $200 in pay per 
month for two months. 
 
 
On August 22, 1984, the Seventh District Commander notified the applicant that he was 
initiating the applicant’s general discharge due to drug abuse and that the applicant had a right to 
consult a lawyer, to object to the discharge, and to submit a written statement. 
 
 
On  August  27,  1984,  the  applicant  acknowledged  the  discharge  notification,  the 
opportunity to consult an attorney, and the fact that he might encounter prejudice in civilian life 
because of the general discharge.  On this acknowledgment, he indicated that he did not object to 
the general discharge and that he did not desire to submit a statement. 
 
 
On September 10, 1984, the District Commander asked the Commandant to discharge the 
applicant and recommended a general discharge  for drug abuse.   On September 14, 1984, the 
Commandant  ordered  the  applicant’s  command  to  discharge  him  with  a  general  discharge  for 
misconduct due to drug abuse in accordance with Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual.  The 
applicant was discharged on September 21, 1984, pursuant to this order.  His DD 214, which he 
signed,  shows  that  he  was  discharged  “under  honorable  conditions”  (a  general  discharge) 
because of “misconduct” with an HKK separation code, which denotes drug abuse. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  December  17,  2010,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  rec-
ommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  this  case.    The  JAG  stated  that  the  application  is 
untimely and that the applicant was discharged in accordance with policy.  The JAG stated that 
nothing in the record supports the applicant’s claim that he was told that his discharge would be 
upgraded  to  honorable  six  months  after  his  discharge.    The  JAG  argued  that  relief  should  be 
denied because the applicant has failed to prove that his general discharge is erroneous or unjust. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 4, 2011, 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 REGULATIONS 

 
 
 
Article 20.A.2.m. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1984 stated that any occurrence of 
drug abuse constituted a “drug incident.”  Article 20.B.2.b.(1) authorized “administrative inspec-
tions” in the form of random or all-unit urinalyses.  Article 20.B.3.c.(1) provided that after one 
“drug incident,” a petty officer could be discharged or retained in the Service, depending upon 
his  overall  performance  and  conduct  and  completion  of  screening  and  treatment.    Article 
12.B.2.f.(2)  provided  that  a  “general  discharge  will  be  issued  …  [w]hen  a  member  has  been 
identified as either a user, possessor, or distributor of illegal drugs or paraphernalia” unless the 
discharge was not administrative but punitive (by court-martial), in which case a bad conduct or 
dishonorable discharge could be assigned. 

 

Instruction  5810.4,  issued  by  the  Seventh  District  Commander  on  March  26,  1984, 
provided that unit urinalysis was mandatory at least quarterly in the Seventh District due to the 
prevalence and availability of illegal drugs in the area, and that all members who were found by 
urinalysis to have THC levels above 50 ng/ml were deemed to have been involved in a “drug 
incident.”    The  instruction  further  noted  that  at  court-martial,  the  maximum  punishment  for 
illegal  drug  use  was  a  dishonorable  discharge,  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and  allowances,  and  con-
finement at hard labor for five years. 
 

ALCOAST 016/84, issued by the Commandant on July 30, 1984, stated that “[e]ffective 
upon receipt, any member involved in a drug incident as defined by [the Personnel Manual] … 
will be processed for separation.”  It noted that the then-current drug policy had been in effect for 
more than two years and had been widely publicized through recruit training and required unit 
indoctrination.  It stated that in the Service’s attempt to rid itself of anyone who abused drugs, 
more than 700 members had received general discharges due to drug abuse since April 1982.   
 

Under Article 12.B.18.b.4. of the current Personnel Manual, “[a]ny member involved in a 
drug incident … will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard with no higher than a 
general discharge.”   
 

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 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

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.2  Although the 
applicant claimed that he discovered the alleged error in his record on July 30, 2010, the record 
shows that he knew in 1984 that he was receiving a general discharge.  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.”3   

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 
 

The applicant did not explain his delay in seeking an upgrade of his discharge.   

                                                 
2 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b); 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
3 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). 

5. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case shows that it lacks potential merit.  The 
record shows that a urinalysis revealed that the applicant had used cocaine and marijuana.  The 
District  Commander’s  determination  that  the  applicant  had  abused  drugs  and  the  resultant 
general  discharge  are  presumptively  correct  under  the  Board’s  rules  at  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b).4  
The applicant was  afforded the same due process that members involved in a “drug incident” 
receive today (notification of the proposed discharge and the opportunity to consult a lawyer, to 
object to the discharge, and to submit a written statement),5 and he did not object to the proposed 
general discharge.  The record contains no evidence supporting the applicant’s claim that he was 
told his general discharge would be upgraded to honorable six months after his separation from 
the Service.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

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] 

 

                                                 
4 See Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 
813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), for the required presumption, absent evidence to the contrary, that Government officials have 
carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”).   
5 Personnel Manual, Article 12.B.18. 

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

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.