DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-074 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 January 19, 2011, 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  October  13,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former aviation electronics technician, second class (AET2/pay grade E-
5)  who  was  honorably  discharged  on  April  25,  2006,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  discharge 
form DD 214 to show that he was discharged for “Completion of Required Active Service” with 
an  MBK  separation  code,  instead  of  “Separation  for  Miscellaneous/General  Reasons”  with  a 
KND separation code.   

 
The applicant alleged that the KND code means “Failure to Obtain Retainability” and so 
implies that he was discharged for negative reasons.  The applicant alleged that he completed not 
only  his  first  enlistment  but  several  extensions  before  he  opted  to  leave  active  duty  and  so  the 
MBK  code  would  be  accurate.    He  noted  that  his  discharge  orders  state  that  he  should  be  dis-
charged with an MBK code. 

 
The applicant alleged that he learned the meaning of his separation code and realized it 
was erroneous on October 29, 2009, when he went to an Army recruiting office in Gilroy, Cali-
fornia.  The recruiter looked up the meaning of the code and told him that it means “Failure to 
Obtain Retainability.”  Therefore, the applicant applied to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) to 
have the code corrected.  However, the DRB decided that since he entered the temporary separa-
tion program before he decided not to return to active duty, his separation code should be KND.  
The  applicant  stated  that  when  he  requested  a  temporary  separation,  he  was  told  that  he  could 
return to active duty if he wanted to.  Therefore, he argued, the KND code is not accurate and the 

 

 

MBK code would be accurate because he had completed his obligated service when he entered 
the temporary separation program on April 25, 2006.  The applicant disputed the DRB’s finding 
that he had not completed his required active service and so was not entitled to the MBK code.  
The applicant submitted several documents to support his allegations, which are included in the 
summary below.   

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On  August  13,  1998,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  for  eight  years 
under the delayed entry program.  On October 26, 1998, he enlisted on active duty for four years, 
through  October  25,  2002.    Thereafter,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  three  one-year  periods, 
through  October  25,  2005.    A  print-out  from  the  Coast  Guard’s  database  shows  that  he  then 
extended his enlistment for six months, through April 25, 2006.   

 
On March 3, 2006, the Coast Guard issued separation travel orders because the applicant 
had not obligated service past April 25, 2006.  The orders state that his separation code should be 
MBK. 

 
On  March  13,  2006,  the  applicant  requested  a  temporary  separation  pursuant  to  Article 
12.F.1. of the Personnel Manual to pursue his education in environmental science.  Under Article 
12.F.1.,  members  may  request  temporary  separations  for  up  to  two  years  and  are  guaranteed 
reenlistment in the same pay grade at the end of that period as long as they are still fit for duty. 
 

On April 25, 2006, the applicant was released from active duty.  His DD 214 shows that 
he was released pursuant to Article 12.F.6. of the Personnel Manual and assigned an RE-1 reen-
try  code  (eligible  to  reenlist)  and  a  KND  separation  code  with  “Separation  for  Miscellane-
ous/General Reasons” as his narrative reason for separation. 
 

On April 26, 2006, the applicant reenlisted in the Reserve for six years. 

 

In November 2009, the applicant applied to the DRB and requested separation code KAK 
(which  is  not  a  separation  code  used  by  the  Coast  Guard)  or  MBK  (“Completion  of  Required 
Active Service”).  The DRB denied the applicant’s request on July 8, 2010.  The DRB stated that 
the applicant received a temporary separation pursuant to Article 12.F. of the Personnel Manual 
and  that  in  accordance  with  Article  12.F.6.,  members  separating  temporarily  receive  the  KND 
separation  code  and  “Separation  for  Miscellaneous/General  Reasons”  as  their  narrative  reason 
for separation.  The DRB also alleged that “MBK is not applicable as the applicant had remain-
ing  obligated  service  at  the  time  of  separation.”    The  DRB  claimed  that  “the  assignment  of  a 
code  that  reflects  completion  of  required  act  service  is  not  appropriate  as  the  applicant  did  not 
complete his required service, rather he was separated early under an authorized program at his 
request.”  The DRB also noted that “KND is not derogatory as the applicant contends.” 
 
 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 4, 2011, 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 prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
The  PSC  stated  that  because  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Reserve  for  eight  years  on 
August  13,  1998,  the  end  of  his  military  service  obligation  was  August  12,  2006,  and  he  obli-
gated himself to serve at least four years on active duty and the remainder in the Reserve.  There-
fore, on April 25, 2006, the applicant had not completed all of his previously obligated service. 
 
 
The PSC stated that because of the applicant’s “pending expiration of active duty enlist-
ment terminating on April 25, 2006,” he was issued separation orders on March 3, 2006, assign-
ing  him  the  MBK  separation  code,  which  is  the  correct  code  for  members  who  are  discharged 
due to their completion of all their required active service.  However, he thereafter submitted a 
request  for  a  temporary  separation  under  Article  12.F.    His  request  was  approved,  and  he  was 
issued new separation orders assigning him the KND separation code in accordance with policy.  
The  PSC  stated  that  the  claim  that  the  KND  code  means  “Failure  to  Obtain  Retainability”  is 
false. 
 

In  support  of  these  allegations,  the  PSC  submitted  copies  of  the  applicant’s  separation 
and  travel  orders,  issued  on  April  10  and  11,  2006,  which  show  that  he  was  to  be  temporarily 
separated  pursuant  to  Article  12.F.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  assigned  the  KND  separation 
code  with  “Separation  for  Miscellaneous/General  Reasons”  as  the  narrative  reason  for  separa-
tion.  The PSC also submitted copies of pages of the SPD Handbook showing the meaning of the 
MBK and KND codes. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 9, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

 
 
invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article 12.F.1.1. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he Temporary Separation policy 
allows Coast  Guard members to temporarily  separate and pursue  growth or other opportunities 
outside  the  service,  while  providing  a  mechanism  for  their  return  to  active  duty.”    Article 
12.F.1.2.  states  that  “[p]ersonnel  who  already  have  an  approved  separation  date  may  request, 
prior  to  that  date,  to  be  separated  under  this  policy.”    Articles  12.F.6.  and  12.F.2.  authorize  a 
member  to  be  temporarily  separated  from  active  duty  for  up  to  two  years  and  guarantee  the 
member reenlistment at either the same rate or, under certain circumstances, a higher rate at the 
end of the temporary separation period. 
 
The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook  states  that  a  member  who  under-
 
goes a “voluntary release or transfer to another Service component upon completion of required 
service” receives an MBK separation code and “Completion of Required Active Service.”   

 

 

 

The  SPD  Handbook  states  that  the  KND  code  is  for  a  member  whose  “voluntary  dis-
charge [is] allowed by established directive when a Service component does not have a Service 
reporting requirement for specific reasons and desires to identify reasons collectively ‘All other 
reasons’ which qualify a member for separation.”   
 

The  SPD  Handbook  does  not  contain  any  code  that  means  “temporary  separation.”    It 
also does not contain any code that means “failure to obtain retainability,” but the KGH code is 
for a member whose “voluntary discharge [is] allowed by established directive when member is 
recommended for continued active duty—failure to meet minimum retention requirements.”  The 
corresponding narrative reason for separation is “Non-Retention on Active Duty.” 
 

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  application  was  timely  filed  within  three  years  of  the  applicant’s  discovery  of  the  alleged 
errors in his record and within three years of the decision of the DRB.1   

 
2. 

The applicant alleged that he was erroneously assigned a separation code imply-
ing that his performance was unsatisfactory and that, instead, he should have received the MBK 
separation  code.    The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed 
information in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the appli-
cant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed informa-
tion  is  erroneous  or  unjust.2    Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast 
Guard  officials  and  other  Government  employees  have  carried  out  their  duties  “correctly,  law-
fully, and in good faith.”3  

 
3. 

When the applicant  refused to  obligate additional  active duty in  2006, the Coast 
Guard properly issued him separation orders on March 3, 2006, assigning him the MBK separa-
tion code because, as of his separation date, April 25, 2006, he would have completed all of his 
required active service (although not all of his previously obligated military service because his 
continuing Reserve enlistment would not end until August 12, 2006).  If the applicant had been 
separated pursuant to those orders, his DD 214 would properly have shown the MBK separation 
code but he would not have had the same rights as a member separated under Article 12.F. of the 
Personnel Manual.   

 
4. 

The applicant was not separated pursuant to the orders issued on March 3, 2006, 
because on March 13, 2006, he requested a temporary separation pursuant to Article 12.F. of the 
Personnel Manual, under which he was guaranteed reenlistment at the same rate within two years 

                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b); Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

of his separation.  The Coast Guard approved this request and issued new orders on April 10 and 
11, 2006, for the applicant to be temporarily separated in accordance with the separation author-
ity in Article 12.F.6. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant’s DD 214 shows that he was sepa-
rated pursuant to this second set of separation orders. 

 
5. 

The applicant alleged that the assignment of the KND separation code to him on 
his  DD 214 is  unjust  because the KND  code, he alleged, implies something negative about  his 
performance  or  status.    The  applicant  is  mistaken  about  the  meaning  of  the  KND  code.  
According to the SPD Handbook, it means only that his “voluntary discharge [was] allowed by 
established directive when a Service  component  does not  have a Service  reporting requirement 
for specific reasons and desires to identify reasons collectively ‘All other reasons’ which qualify 
a member for separation.”  The narrative reason for separation on his DD 214 summarizes this 
definition aptly  as “Separation for Miscellaneous/General  Reasons,” which is  the narrative rea-
son  prescribed  by  the  SPD  Handbook  for  those  assigned  the  KND  code.    Because  there  is  no 
separation code specifically authorized for members undergoing temporary separations pursuant 
to Article 12.F.6. of the Personnel Manual, the assignment of the KND code and the “miscellane-
ous/general” narrative reason for separation is correct. 

 
6. 

The  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  KND 

separation code is erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, his application should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied. 

 

 
 
 Anthony C. DeFelice 

 

 

 
 Frank E. Howard 

 

 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter