DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-060 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

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 upon receipt of the applicant’s 
completed application on December 20, 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  August  18,  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  asked  the  Board  to  reinstate  him  on  active  duty  or,  in  the  alternative,  to 
upgrade his character of discharge, narrative reason for discharge, and reentry code.  His DD 214 
shows that he enlisted on September 11, 2007, and on September 28, 2007, during his third week 
of  boot  camp,  he  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  due  to  “Fraudulent 
Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse,” with a JDT separation code and an RE-4 reentry code 
(ineligible to reenlist).  The applicant asked the Board for an honorable discharge for “Miscella-
neous/General Reasons” and an RE-1 reentry code (eligible to reenlist). 

 
The applicant alleged that before he enlisted on September 11, 2007, he honestly reported 
on his EQIP National Security Questionnaire, dated July 21, 2007, that he had not used an illegal 
drug since he was 16 years old.  However, “[w]hen urine analysis test results came back on Sep-
tember 13, 2007, [he] tested positive for marijuana.  Only two nights before that result, [he] had 
spent time with other individuals  that were engaging in  smoking marijuana inside of a vehicle.  
The close proximity and passive inhalation allowed for trace amounts of marijuana to enter [his] 
body.”    He  argued  that  it  was  unfair  for  his  passive  inhalation  of  other’s  smoke  to  be  charac-
terized as drug abuse.1 

                                                 
1 The Board notes that the applicant alleged that he was discharged in part for concealing a history of Lyme disease.  
However,  his  JDT  separation  code  shows  that  he  was  discharged  for  lying  about  illegal  drug  use,  not  about  his 
medical  history.    The  JDT  code  and  corresponding  narrative  reason  for  discharge  “Fraudulent  Entry  into  Military 
Service, Drug Abuse” are used only for an “involuntary discharge directed by established directive (no board entitle-

 

 

 
The  applicant  noted  that  in  2008  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  recommended 
upgrading his discharge, reason for discharge, separation code, and reenlistment code, but those 
recommendations  were  denied  by  the  Vice  Commandant.    The  applicant  argued  that  the  DRB 
properly determined that “his actions amounted to no more than a youthful indiscretion” and that 
his  subsequent  apprenticeship  with  a  carpenter’s  union  and  work  with  handicapped  children 
show that he has gained maturity.  The applicant argued that the DRB’s recommendation should 
be implemented because the DRB “had the opportunity to more fully evaluate the case and make 
a decision based on an equitable and democratic approach.” 

 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  several  character  references.    His 
wrestling  coach  called  him  mature,  conscientious,  level-headed,  open-minded,  and  honest.    A 
friend  of  the  applicant’s  family  who  has  served  in  the  National  Guard  and  as  a  Senior  Correc-
tions Officer for the State of New Jersey wrote that the applicant has high aspirations and “would 
be a tremendous asset to the service.”  The Executive Director of a non-profit organization stated 
that  he  knows  the  applicant  through  Little  League  baseball  and  that  the  applicant  is  “a  highly 
motivated individual, a talented athlete and a leader on his teams.” 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On September 11, 2007, at age 18, the applicant enlisted on active duty at the recruiting 
office in Atlantic City, New Jersey.  Before taking the oath on that day, he and his recruiter com-
pleted a Record of Military Processing,  on which the applicant admitted that he had previously 
“experimented with marijuana.”  He also signed a form acknowledging that he had been advised 
of the Coast Guard’s drug policy and 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.  I hereby affirm that I am drug free 
and ready for recruit training.”  In addition, he signed a form certifying that “all information on 
my  enlistment  documents  is  current  and  accurate.  …  I  understand  withholding  information  is 
punishable  under  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  and  may  result  in  less  than 
honorable discharge for fraudulent enlistment.”  After taking the oath, he reported to the Training 
Center in Cape May, New Jersey, approximately 50 miles away, for boot camp. 
 
 
On  September  28,  2007,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  boot  camp  after  his  urine 
tested positive for THC.  A Page 7 entry in his record shows that he received a general discharge 
for misconduct under Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual because of his positive urinalysis 
result upon arriving  at  the Training Center.   However, his  DD 214  reflects  a  general  discharge 
pursuant to Article 12.B.20. of the Personnel Manual as well as a JDT separation code, an RE-4 
reentry code, and “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse” as his narrative reason 
for separation. 
 
 

 

                                                                                                                                                             
ment)  when a  member procured a fraudulent enlistment, induction or period of  military  service through deliberate 
material  misrepresentation,  omission  or  concealment  of  drug  use/abuse.”    Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD) 
Handbook. 

 

 

DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

 
 
On December 3, 2008, the DRB recommended, on a vote of three to two, that the Com-
mandant upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable, his reentry code to RE-1, and his reason 
for discharge to “Miscellaneous/General.”  The DRB noted that the applicant attributed his uri-
nalysis result, which was 43 nanograms of THC per milliliter (ng/ml), to his exposure to second-
hand marijuana smoke two days before basic training.  The DRB found that the applicant’s dis-
charge was equitable and proper but also the result of a “youthful indiscretion” by a young man 
with a strong and genuine desire to serve and the potential to be an asset if allowed to serve. 
 
 
The majority of the DRB members found that the applicant “provided credible testimony 
and he was not dishonest.  Studies conducted by Tripler AMC concluded that test subjects in a 
closed-door environment,  subjected to  secondhand smoke may test positive for THC.  There is 
clearly reasonable doubt in this case, which supports the applicant’s testimony.  As stated above, 
this  19-year-old  applicant  has  a  huge  potential  for  having  a  successful  career  in  the  military  if 
offered the chance; it would be a waste not to provide him the opportunity.” 
 
 
Two of the DRB members stated that “the applicant’s integrity is questionable.  On sev-
eral occasions during his testimony, he appeared to be dishonest, which calls all testimony into 
doubt.  The Tripler AMC studies show that the test subjects in a closed-door environment (8 x 8 
x 6), subjected to the secondhand smoke of 14 marijuana cigarettes for six hours tested positive 
on their urinalysis for THC.  However, in this case the applicant was in a moving automobile for 
40 minutes with four windows open while two marijuana cigarettes were smoked.  In conclusion, 
the applicant’s claim of second hand inhalation is incredulous.” 
 
On  June  2,  2009,  the  Vice  Commandant  disapproved  the  DRB’s  recommendation  for 
 
relief  but  noted  that  block  24  of  the  applicant’s  DD  214,  which  contains  the  character  of  the 
member’s service, erroneously stated “general” instead of “under honorable conditions.”  There-
fore, on June 22, 2009, the Coast Guard issued a DD 215 to correct block 24 to “under honorable 
conditions.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 3, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s requests.  In so 
doing, he adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum prepared by 
the Personnel Service Center (PSC). 
 
 
The PSC stated that the applicant received a general discharge “for fraudulent entry into 
military  service  for  his  involvement  with  controlled  substances  [in]  accordance  with  policy.”  
The PSC stated that the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice in his record and 
that it entirely concurs with the Vice Commandant’s decision not to grant the requested relief. 
 
 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 5, 2011, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  The applicant stated that since he addressed the decision of the DRB and the Vice Com-
mandant in his original application and the Coast Guard stated only that it concurs with the deci-
sion of the Vice Commandant, the advisory opinion of the Coast  Guard “does not necessitate a 
substantive response because the arguments contained in [the applicant’s] CGBCMR application 
continue to provide a sufficient basis upon which to grant relief.” 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
Article  20.C.2.a.6.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2007  states  that  new  recruits 

must undergo urinalysis within three days of arriving at the Training Center. 

 
Article  12.B.18.b.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “[a]ny  member  involved  in  a 
drug incident … as defined in Article 20.A.2.k., will be processed for separation from the Coast 
Guard  with  no  higher  than  a  general  discharge.    Commanding  Officer,  Training  Center  Cape 
May is delegated final discharge authority for members assigned to recruit training or prior ser-
vice training program under this Article in specific cases of drug use before enlistment (as evi-
denced by a positive urinalysis shortly after entering training).”  Under Article 20.A.2.k. illegal 
use of a controlled substance constitutes a drug incident. 

 
Article 12.B.18.b.5. of the Personnel Manual states that a member may be discharged for 
fraudulent enlistment for “[p]rocuring a fraudulent enlistment, induction, or period of active ser-
vice  through  any  deliberate  material  misrepresentation,  omission,  or  concealment  which,  if 
known  at  the  time,  might  have  resulted  in  rejection.  …  Commanding  Officer,  Training  Center 
Cape  May,  is  delegated  final  discharge  authority  under  this  Article  in  these  specific  cases  for 
members assigned to recruit training or prior service training program:  a. Deliberately concealed 
criminal records or other information necessary to effect enlistment. …” 

 
Article  12.B.18.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a  member  with  fewer  than  eight 
years of service who is  being discharged for misconduct  with  a general  discharge is  entitled to 
(a)  notice  of  the  reason  for  the  discharge;  (b)  an  opportunity  to  consult  a  lawyer;  and  (c)  an 
opportunity to submit a statement on his own behalf. 

 
Article  12.B.20.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which  is  the  authority  for  discharge  cited  on 
the applicant’s DD 214,  is  entitled “Uncharacterized Discharges.”   Article 12.B.20.a.1.b.  states 
that the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Training Center may award recruits with less than 180 
days  of  service  an  “uncharacterized”  discharge  if  the  recruits  “[d]emonstrate  poor  proficiency, 
conduct,  aptitude  or  unsuitability  for  further  service  during  the  period  from  enlistment  through 
recruit training.”  Article 12.B.20.b.1. states that the CO of the Training Center “when compel-
ling  circumstances  exist,  has  the  authority  to  award  an  uncharacterized  discharge  for  service 
during boot camp in cases involving drug incidents.” 

 
Article 12.B.20.d. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he availability of the uncharac-
terized discharge does not preclude awarding recruits with serious infractions a type of discharge 

 

 

used  for  characterized  service,  usually  General  or  Under  Other  than  Honorable  Conditions.    If 
other  than  an  uncharacterized  discharge  is  appropriate,  send  requests  to  Commander  (CGPC-
epm-1) for consideration.” 

 
Under  Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  1900.4D,  the  manual  for  preparing  DD  214s,  the 
character of service entered in block 24 of a DD 214 should be “uncharacterized” for members 
separated under the authority of Article 12.B.20. of the Personnel Manual.   

 
 
Under the SPD Handbook, a member involuntarily discharged under Article 12.B.18. of 
the Personnel  Manual for  procuring  “fraudulent  enlistment,  induction  or period of military ser-
vice through deliberate, material misrepresentation, omission or concealment of drug use/abuse” 
receives a JDT separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and “Fraudulent Entry into Military 
Service, Drug Abuse.”  
 

ALCOAST 081/93, issued by the Commandant on August 20, 1993, states that the posi-
tive  reporting  level  for  THC  in  a  urinalysis  was  decreased  from  50  ng/ml  to  15  ng/ml  because 
clinical studies showed that passive inhalation results in levels below 15 ng/ml. 

 
ALCOAST 125/10, issued by the Commandant on March 18, 2010, states that the default 
reentry  code for a member being discharged  with  a JDT separation code is now RE-3 and that 
the RE-4 code “is prescribed by the separation approval authority only in cases with associated 
in-service misconduct (e.g., tampering with drug/alcohol test).” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  
Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b)  and  33  C.F.R.  §  52.22,  an  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed 
within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice.  Although the appli-
cant in this case filed his application more than three years after his discharge, he filed it within 
three years of the decision of the DRB.  Therefore, the application is considered timely.2 

 
2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.3   
 

3.  

The applicant  alleged that  his  general discharge  for fraudulent  enlistment  due to 
drug abuse was erroneous and unjust.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by “presuming 

                                                 
2 Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

3 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 

 

 

administratively  regularity  on  the  part  of  Coast  Guard  and  other  Government  officials.”4    The 
applicant bears the burden of proving the existence of an error or injustice by a preponderance of 
the evidence.5  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials 
and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith.”6  
 
4. 

According  to  the  applicant,  when  completing  his  pre-enlistment  EQIP  question-
naire in  July 2007, he  honestly  reported that he  had last used  marijuana  when he was 16  years 
old.  The record shows that on the day he enlisted, September 11, 2007, the applicant (a) admit-
ted to his recruiter that he had “experimented with marijuana” in the past, as noted on his Record 
of  Military  Processing;  (b)  acknowledged  by  his  signature  that  he  had  been  advised  that  he 
would undergo urinalysis upon arrival at the Training Center and that a positive test result would 
likely  trigger  a  general  discharge;  (c)  certified  the  continuing  accuracy  of  all  his  enlistment 
papers; and (d) certified that he was “drug-free and ready for recruit training.”  The applicant’s 
claims in  this regard, however, were  not  accurate.  Upon his  arrival at  the Training Center, his 
urine tested positive for THC at a level of 43 ng/ml, which indicates either that he had smoked, 
inhaled, or otherwise ingested marijuana within the last few days or that he had previously been 
a long-term, habitual marijuana user.7 

 
5. 

The applicant alleged that on the day he enlisted, he had not used marijuana since 
he was 16 years old—more than two years earlier.  He attributed his positive urinalysis result to 
his passive inhalation of the second-hand marijuana smoke of others.  He told the DRB that he 
had unintentionally inhaled the second-hand smoke when two friends were each smoking a joint 
during a 40-minute car ride with the windows open.  The applicant’s allegations are not credible 
because his THC level was 43 ng/ml—well above the Armed Forces’ cut-off of 15 ng/ml.  The 
cut-off of 15 ng/ml was set expressly to exclude any positive results from “passive” inhalation of 
second-hand marijuana smoke.8  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has failed to prove 

                                                 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
5 Id. 
6 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
7  U.S.  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services,  Substance  Abuse  and  Mental  Health  Services  Administration, 
Office of Applied Studies, Comparing Drug Testing and Self-Report of Drug Use Among Youths and Young Adults 
in the General Population, June 2007, at 59 (“Carboxy-THC is detectable in the urine for 1 to 3 days after casual use 
and  for  7  or  more  days  after  moderate  use.    Higher  doses  through  either  increased  frequency  of  use  or  increased 
potency of the marijuana may extend the window of detection.  The elimination phase of urinary THC metabolites 
may  be  extended  for  up  to  30  days  after  cessation  of  use  among  heavy  marijuana  smokers  [citations  omitted].”); 
U.S. Navy Bureau of Personnel, Public Health Center, The Navy Drug Testing Program and Navy Drug Screening 
Laboratories (NDSLs), August 30, 2010, at 18 (stating that the detection period for THC above the 15 ng/ml level is 
just 5 days except when there has been prior chronic, daily use).  
8 U.S. Coast Guard, ALCOAST 081/93, August 20, 1993 (noting that the cut-off was lowered from 50 ng/ml to 15 
ng/ml because research had shown that exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke would not result in a THC level 
above 15 ng/ml); see also R. S. Niedbala et al., Passive Cannabis Smoke Exposure and Oral Fluid Testing. II. Two 
Studies of Extreme Cannabis Smoke Exposure in a Motor Vehicle, JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL TOXICOLOGY, October 
2005, at 607 (finding that when 4 test subjects sat in an unventilated van with 4 other people who were smoking 1 
cannabis cigarette each for 1 hour, oral tests for THC conducted after the  non-smoking test subjects were removed 
from the van were negative, and “[u]rine analysis confirmed oral fluid results.”); S. J. Mule, P. Lomax, S. J. Gross, 
Active and Realistic Passive Marijuana Exposure Tested by Three Immunoassays and GC/MS in Urine, JOURNAL OF 

 

 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice in find-
ing that he intentionally used marijuana within a few days of his enlistment, falsely claimed that 
he had last used marijuana two years earlier, and falsely claimed to be “drug free” to ensure his 
enlistment.   

 
6. 

The Board notes that the applicant  stated that he  received the positive urinalysis 
result on September 13,  2009, and that he had been in  the car with  the second-hand marijuana 
smoke “[o]nly two nights before that result.”  Therefore, it may be that the applicant is claiming 
that  the  pertinent  car  ride  occurred  on  September  11,  2009,  after  he  enlisted  at  the  recruiter’s 
office in  Atlantic City,  N.J., and before he reported for training to  Cape May, N.J.  The Board 
finds, however, that whether his drug use occurred a day or two before he enlisted or on the day 
of his enlistment, his claim that he was “drug free” was patently false. 

 
7. 

Recruits whose urine tests positive for THC as a result of drug use that they con-
cealed upon their enlistment may be discharged by the CO of the Training Center for fraudulent 
enlistment  under  Article  12.B.18.b.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    In  light  of  this  rule  and  the 
applicant’s intentional, illegal use of marijuana within a day or two of his enlistment, the Board 
finds that the CO  committed no error or injustice in  discharging  him by  reason of  misconduct, 
specifically “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse,” in accordance with the SPD 
Handbook.  The applicant is not entitled to reinstatement on active duty or to have the reason for 
his discharged changed to “Miscellaneous/General” as he requested. 

 
8. 

The  CO  of  the  Training  Center  may  award  recruits  being  discharged  for  pre-
enlistment  drug  use  either  an  uncharacterized  discharge  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.20.b.1.  of  the 
Personnel Manual or a general discharge under honorable conditions pursuant to Article 12.B.18.  
Recruits  discharged  for  misconduct  under  Article  12.B.18.  are  entitled  to  due  process  as  pre-
scribed  in  Article  12.B.18.e.,  but  under  Article  12.B.20.,  recruits  receive  uncharacterized  dis-
charges  without  any  particular  procedures.    Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  1900.4D  states  that 
the character of service entered in block 24 of a DD 214 should be “uncharacterized” for mem-
bers  separated  under  the  authority  of  Article  12.B.20.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    However,  the 
applicant’s DD 214 shows that he was discharged under Article 12.B.20. but awarded a general 
discharge.  This combination is inconsistent with the regulations.  Nor is it clear that the appli-
cant  received  the  due  process  required  under  Article  12.B.18.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  even 
though  he  was  awarded  a  general  discharge  for  misconduct.    The  copy  of  his  military  record 
received  by  the  Board  contains  none  of  the  documentation  of  due  process  under  Article 
12.B.18.e.  that  normally  appears  in  the  record  of  a  veteran  who  has  been  awarded  a  general 
discharge for misconduct.   

 

                                                                                                                                                             
ANALYTICAL  TOXICOLOGY,  May/June  1988,  at  113  (“Passive  inhalation  experiments  under  conditions  likely  to 
reflect realistic exposure resulted consistently in less than 10 ng/ml of cannabinoids.  The 10 – 100 ng/ml cannabi-
noid  concentration  range  essential  for  detection  of  occasional  and  moderate  marijuana  users  is  thus  unaffected  by 
realistic passive inhalation.”); E. J. Cone et al., Passive Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke: Urinalysis and Room Air 
Levels  of  Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol,  JOURNAL  OF  ANALYTICAL  TOXICOLOGY,  May/June  1987,  at  89  (finding 
that when test subjects were exposed to the second-hand smoke of 4 marijuana cigarettes for 1 hour each day for 6 
consecutive  days  in  a  small,  unventilated  room,  urine  “specimens  tested  positive  only  infrequently  or  were 
negative.”). 

 

 

9. 

Although the Coast Guard was entitled to discharge the applicant for “Fraudulent 
Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse,” the applicant’s DD 214 was not completed in accor-
dance with regulation and it is thus unclear whether the CO of the Training Center intended to 
discharge him in accordance with Article 12.B.20. or Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual.  
Given the lack of any evidence that the command afforded the applicant the due process required 
for a  general  discharge  under Article 12.B.18.e., the Board finds that his  record should be  cor-
rected  to  show  that  he  received  an  uncharacterized  discharge  in  accordance  with  Article 
12.B.20., which is the authority for discharge cited on his DD 214. 

 
10. 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reentry code from RE-4 to RE-1 to 
allow him to reenlist.   In 2007, the RE-4 was the only reentry code authorized in the SPD Hand-
book for members discharged for “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse.”  How-
ever, on March 18, 2010, the Commandant issued ALCOAST 125/10, which amended the SPD 
Handbook.  Under ALCOAST 125/10, the default reentry code for a member being discharged 
with  a  JDT  separation  code  is  now  RE-3,  and  the  RE-4  code  “is  prescribed  by  the  separation 
approval  authority  only  in  cases  with  associated  in-service  misconduct  (e.g.,  tampering  with 
drug/alcohol  test).”    An  RE-3  code  allows  a  veteran  to  reenlist  if  a  recruiter  is  able  to  get  a 
waiver from the Recruiting Command.  The applicant’s continuing lack of honesty with regard to 
his marijuana use is disturbing, but there is no clear evidence in the record before the Board that 
he committed any misconduct while on active duty.  In addition, the Board notes that during his 
hearing before the DRB, three members were persuaded that he has “a huge potential for having 
a successful career in the military if offered the chance.”  Therefore,  although the applicant has 
not  proved  that  he  should  receive  an  RE-1,  the  Board  finds  that  his  reentry  code  should  be 
upgraded from RE-4 to the new default of RE-3 pursuant to ALCOAST 125/10. 

 
11. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected.  Specifically, the Board 
will correct block 24 to show that he received an uncharacterized discharge and block 27 to show 
a reentry code of RE-3.  Moreover, these corrections should be made by the issuance of a new 
DD 214, not by issuance of another DD 215.  He is not entitled to any other relief.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall issue him a new DD 214 incorporating the following corrections: 

 

•  Block 24 shall show an uncharacterized discharge; and 
•  Block 27 shall show an RE-3 reentry code.   

 

The following notation may be made in Block 18 of the DD 214:  “Action taken pursuant 

to order of BCMR.” 

 
No other relief is granted. 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall