DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-090 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 February 21, 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 December 22, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his February 14, 2008, general discharge under 
honorable conditions to an honorable discharge; to upgrade his separation code (JKA) and narra-
tive reason for separation (misconduct) on his  discharge  form  DD 214;  to  upgrade his  reenlist-
ment code from RE-4 (ineligible) to RE-1 eligible; and to change the date of entry on active duty 
on his DD 214 from August 8, 2004, to July 19, 2004.   
 
The applicant stated that most of his life has been “guided through the right way” and that 
 
he served proudly for 3.5 years on active duty and for 1.3 years as a federal civilian employee.  
The applicant  stated that he needs the requested corrections to  move forward in  his  life, earn a 
higher degree, reenlist in the Armed Forces, and stop being a burden to his parents and the Gov-
ernment.  In support of his request, the applicant submitted the following: 
 

  The second page of an enlistment contract shows that he signed it on July 19, 2004. 

 

  Training  certificates  show  that  he  completed  an  eight-week  course  of  basic  training  on 
September 10, 2004; qualified as a machinery technician, third class (MK3/E-4) on Janu-
ary 28, 2005; qualified as a boat engineer on December 1, 2005; and completed Hazard-
ous  Waste  Operations  and  Emergency  Response  Marine  Oil  Spill  Emergency  Response 
Training on December 12, 2005.  

 

 

 

 

 

  Documents show that he tested 2+ in Spanish listening comprehension and reading com-
prehension  on  a  scale  of  0  to  3  on  March  9,  2006,  and  qualified  as  “a  linguist  and  an 
interpreter for Spanish.” 

 
  A database print-out shows that he is entitled to wear the Global War on Terrorism Ser-
vice  Medal,  the  Pistol  Marksman  Ribbon,  and  Presidential  Unit  Citation,  and  the  Good 
Conduct Medal. 

  Certificates show that he graduated from high school in 1995 and from college in 2002. 

  Documents show that he received a temporary appointment as a maintenance worker for 
a  Coast  Guard  Sector  office  in  2009  and  completed  Coast  Guard  Civilian  Orientation 
Training, DHS Travel Card Training, and forklift training before his appointment ended 
on October 22, 2010, because “another  applicant was selected  for a permanent  appoint-
ment in this position.” 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant’s  enlistment  documents  are  dated  July  19,  2004,  which  was  the  Monday 
eight weeks before Friday, September 10, 2004, the date the applicant graduated from the Coast 
Guard’s eight-week basic training course.  He was 28 years old when he enlisted.  The applicant 
attended MK “A” School and earned the MK rating.  He was assigned to a shore unit. 
 
 
The  applicant  was  counseled  in  May  2005  for  using  a  Coast  Guard  computer  inappro-
priately;  in  March  2006  for  repeatedly  failing  to  report  for  duty  on  time;  and  in  May  2006  for 
using  disrespectful  language  to  a  superior  petty  officer,  swearing  at  a  non-rate  who  spoke  up 
against  his  disrespectful  language,  and  failing  to  pay  a  bill  on  time.    However,  he  received  no 
formal punishment during his first three consecutive years of active duty and so received a Good 
Conduct Medal in July 2007.   
 

At  the  time  the  Good  Conduct  Medal  was  awarded,  however,  the  applicant  was  under 
investigation  and  charged  with  several  violations  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice 
(UCMJ).  The investigation revealed the following incidents: 

 
In January 2007, the applicant began harassing a young female seaman apprentice (SA X) 
by knocking on her barracks door and sometimes opening her door and entering without 
knocking.  He would “ask her where she had been and what she was doing.”  Such inci-
dents occurred twelve to fifteen times.  Once, the applicant knocked on SA X’s door and 
forcibly  grabbed  her  cell  phone  from  her  when  she  opened  the  door,  so  that  she  had  to 
struggle to get it back.  SA X reported this incident to a fellow petty officer, who warned 
the applicant to stop his inappropriate behavior and to leave SA X alone. 

In March 2007, the applicant approached  SA X from behind in the watch room, put his 
hands on her hips, and hugged her from behind.  She pushed him away and told him not 
to  touch  her.    He  asked  her,  “Why?  Come  on.  What’s  your  problem?”    She  ran  into 
another room to find someone else. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In April 2007, the applicant followed SA X to the door of the unit’s female locker room 
and pushed her as he forced his way inside the room.  The applicant began kissing her but 
stopped  when  she  resisted  and  became  upset.    SA  X  reported  this  incident  to  the  petty 
officer, who advised her to report the applicant to his supervisor. 

  On Friday, May 4, 2007, at about 7:45 p.m., while returning to the locker room to fetch 
some earrings she had left on the top shelf of her locker, SA X encountered the applicant 
in the hall outside the galley.  He held out his hand for a “high five,” which she gave him, 
but then he grabbed her wrist.  SA X pulled away, ran down the hall, and went into the 
female  locker  room.    While  SA  X  was  getting  her  earrings,  the  applicant  entered  the 
room, grabbed her from behind, kissed her neck, and pressed her against him so that she 
could feel he had an erection.  She tried to push him away several times and repeatedly 
told him to leave her alone, but he did not let go.  After she broke free once, he grabbed 
her again, but she broke free a second time, ran into the hall, and left the station.    

  Several other young female non-rates who had been assigned to the applicant’s unit told 
the  investigator  that  the  applicant  frequently  acted  inappropriately  toward  them,  despite 
their objections, by brushing up against them unnecessarily, touching them with his hands 
inappropriately, staring at them in the gym, and making inappropriate comments to them.  
One noted that, because of such behavior, she had warned SA X to  “watch out for” the 
applicant when SA X first arrived at the station in November 2006.  Another one called 
him a flirtatious clown and said that she had seen him trip a young non-rate as a way to 
try to get her attention. 

SA  X  reported  the  May  4,  2007,  assault  by  the  applicant,  and  he  was  interviewed  by  a 
special agent of the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) on May 11, 2007.  The applicant 
waived his Article 31(b) rights and confessed both verbally and in writing to having hugged and 
kissed  SA  X  after  following  her  into  the  female  locker  room.    He  was  transferred  to  a  Sector 
office. 

 
On November 14, 2007, the applicant was tried by special court-martial.  He pled guilty 
to violating Articles 128 and 134 of the UCMJ and was sentenced to reduction in pay grade to  
E-2, forfeiture of $30 in pay per month for ten months, confinement for 20 days, and restriction 
to base for 30 days.  The applicant’s confinement began the same day. 

 
On  November  19,  2007,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  notified  him  that  he 
was initiating the applicant’s administrative discharge for a pattern of misconduct in accordance 
with  Article  12.B.18.b.3.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  based  on  the  findings  of  the  investigation 
and  the  special  court-martial.    The  CO  advised  him  that  Commander,  Personnel  Command 
would decide whether he would be discharged and what type of discharge he would receive.  The 
CO also advised him that he had a right to legal counsel and to submit a statement. 

 
On  November  29,  2007,  the  applicant  acknowledged  notification  of  the  pending  dis-
charge and of his right to submit a statement and to consult an attorney.  The applicant noted that 
he objected to the discharge, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement.  In his statement, the 

 

 

applicant requested retention in the Coast Guard following his confinement or at least an honor-
able  discharge  for  the  sake  of  his  wife  and  children.    The  applicant  also  submitted  a  statement 
from  his  wife,  who  said  that  the  applicant  was  proud  of  being  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  that 
“[e]verything was going fine until that ‘lady’ start[ed] to exaggerate all the situation.”  She stated 
that SA X had options and should have told her (the applicant’s wife)  what was happening but 
instead took the easiest option for her and the worst option for the applicant’s family, as did the 
Coast Guard. 

 
On  December  3,  2007,  the  applicant  was  released  from  confinement.    On  December  4, 
2007, the Sector CO recommended to the Personnel Command that the applicant receive a gen-
eral discharge for misconduct based on his harassment of and assault on SA X.  The CO noted 
that the applicant had continued his misconduct even after he had been warned to stop.  The CO 
stated that the applicant was unable to control his behavior or to “manage himself appropriately 
with females.”  The District Commander concurred in and forwarded the CO’s recommendation 
to  the  Personnel  Command.    He  noted  that  the  applicant’s  “clear  disregard  for  the  privacy  of 
others and failure to accept responsibility for his actions demonstrate his inability to work with 
personnel  of the  female  gender and  adhere to  core values.   I’m  convinced future incidents  will 
occur if he were allowed to remain in the service.” 

 
On January 15, 2008, the Personnel Command issued orders for the applicant to be sepa-
rated on February 13, 2008, with a general discharge, JKA separation code, and “pattern of mis-
conduct” as the narrative reason for separation.  The applicant was discharged on February 14, 
2008.  His DD 214 shows that he received a “general” discharge for “misconduct.”  The DD 214 
also shows in block 12.c. that he had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 7 days of military service 
and, in block 29, that he had no time lost.  The awards listed on the applicant’s DD 214 include 
the Good Conduct  Medal,  the Pistol  Marksmanship  Ribbon,  the Presidential  Unit  Citation, and 
the Global War on Terrorism Medal. 

 
The applicant promptly applied to the Discharge Review Board (DRB).  On August 21, 
2008,  the  DRB  issued  a  decision  finding  that  the  applicant’s  general  discharge  for  misconduct 
was proper and equitable and recommending only partial relief.  The DRB wrote that the appli-
cant was convicted of assault, in violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ, and assault with intent to 
commit  murder,  voluntary  manslaughter,  rape,  robbery,  sodomy,  arson,  burglary,  or  house-
breaking, in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ.  The DRB found that  the record shows that 
the applicant had a total disregard towards the rights of others and failed to accept responsibility 
for his actions.  However, the DRB noted that block 24 of the applicant’s DD 214 indicated that 
the  character  of  the  applicant’s  service  was  “general,”  whereas  the  correct  entry  for  a  member 
receiving  a  general  discharge  is  “under  honorable  conditions.”    The  DRB  also  found  that  the 
JKA separation code in block 26 was appropriate.  The DRB made no correction to the RE code. 

 
The  DRB  reviewing  authority  directed  that  a  DD  215  (the  DD  214  correction  form)  be 
 
issued correcting the applicant’s character of service in block 24 of the DD 214 from “general” 
to  “under  honorable  conditions”  and  correcting  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  in  block  28 
from “misconduct” to “pattern of misconduct” to correspond with the JKA separation code. 
 
 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 4, 2011,  the Judge  Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast  Guard recommended 
that the Board grant partial 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  con-
firmed that the applicant was found guilty of both assault and assault with intent to commit mur-
der,  voluntary  manslaughter,  rape,  robbery,  sodomy,  arson,  burglary,  or  housebreaking.    The 
PSC also stated that it 
 

reaffirms the findings of the DRB, to include the findings of the CGIS investigation as well as the 
guilty determination made at Special Court Martial.  The applicant has not presented any new evi-
dence  to  discredit  his  administrative  proceedings  or  cause  for  discharge  and  has  thus  failed  to 
substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  with  how  current  policy  and  regulations  are  carried  out  and 
enforced with respect to this administrative discharge. 

 
The PSC stated, however, that additional administrative errors on the applicant’s DD 214 
 
should  be  corrected.    The  PSC  stated  that,  as  the  applicant  alleged,  the  date  of  entry  in  block 
12.a. should be July 19, 2004, 20 days earlier than the date shown, August 8, 2004.  However, 
the PSC stated, the net active service in block 12.c.—3 years, 6 months, and 7 days—is correct 
because  the  applicant  had  20  days  of  “lost  time”  during  his  confinement.    Therefore,  the  PSC 
recommended that the Board correct block 12.a. to show that the applicant enlisted on July 19, 
2004, and correct block 29 to show that he had 20 days of “time lost.”  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 21, 2011, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He submit-
ted  a  photocopy  of  a  Flag  coin  he  received  from  the  First  District  Commander  in  2006.    The 
applicant stated that in 2006, he participated in a search and rescue mission in bad weather with 
8’ to  10’ waves.  While  they were  heading out to the area of the distress call, an  engine  alarm 
sounded due to some debris  in  the port sea chest valve strainer.  They  fixed the  problem, con-
tinued to  the site, and  rescued  about  five people  from  a  floating dock that  had come loose and 
was drifting.  When they returned, the admiral, who was visiting their station, shook his hand and 
gave him the coin.1 
 
 
The applicant also submitted his semiannual performance evaluation dated September 30, 
2006, showing that he received ten average marks of 4, thirteen above average marks of 5, one 
excellent  mark  of  6  for  “Stamina,”  and  one  highest  possible  mark  of  7  for  “Health  and  Well-
Being,” supported by a note stating that he had received a very high score on the physical fitness 
test and helped others improve their personal training.  In addition, the applicant submitted sev-
eral  pages from Article  12.B. of the Personnel  Manual  regarding how a member’s  character of 
service is determined. 
 
 

 

                                                 
1  Flag  coins  are  not  medals.    Instead,  they  are  informal  awards  handed  out  by  high-ranking  officers  who  want  to 
quickly and personally acknowledge a job well done. 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Regulations About General Discharges for Misconduct 
 
 
Article 12.B.18.b.  of the Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2007 and  2008 states that  Com-
mander, Coast Guard Personnel Command may order the discharge of any member for miscon-
duct under these circumstances: 
 

1. Civilian or Foreign Conviction. Conviction by foreign or domestic civil authorities … 
 
2. Pattern of Misconduct. Members may be separated when they have: 
 

a.  two  or  more  non-judicial  punishments,  courts-martial,  or  civilian  convictions  or  a 

combination thereof within a 2-year period; 

b.  three  or  more  unauthorized  absences,  each  is  at  least  three  or  more  days,  within  a  

2-year period; 

c.  six  or  more  unauthorized  absences  and  the  total  amount  is  at  least  six  days,  within  a  

2-year period; 

d. a pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to dependents (see Art. 8.M); 
e. a pattern of failure to pay just debts; 
f. a pattern of shirking; [sic] 
 

3. Commission of a Serious Offense. Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudica-
tion by non-judicial or judicial proceedings.  An acquittal or finding of not guilty at a judicial pro-
ceeding  or  not  holding  [a]  non-judicial  punishment  proceeding  does  not  prohibit  proceedings 
under  this  provision.    However,  the  offense  must  be  established  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence. Police reports, CGIS reports of investigation, etc. may be used to make the determina-
tion that a member committed a serious offense. 
 

a.  Members  may  be  separated  based  on  commission  of  a  serious  military  or  civilian 

offense when: 

(1) The specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation; and 
(2)  The  maximum  penalty  for  the  offense  or  closely  related  offense  under  the 
UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial includes a punitive discharge. The escalator clause 
of Rule for Courts-Martial 103(d) shall not be used in making this determination. 

 
4. Drugs. … 
 
5. Fraudulent 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 has the right to  written notification of 
the reason for the discharge, the right to submit a written statement, and, if a general discharge is 
contemplated, the right to consult a lawyer.   
 
Under  Article  12.B.2.f.  of  the  manual,  Commander,  Personnel  Command  may  award  a 
 
member an honorable discharge, even for misconduct, if the member’s “minimum characteristic 
average  [exceeds]  2.5  in  each  factor  over  the  period  of  the  enlistment”  and  if  the  member 
demonstrates “[p]roper military behavior and proficient performance of duty with due consider-
ation  for  the  member’s  age,  length  of  service,  grade,  and  general  aptitude.”    However,  Com-
mander, Personnel Command may also award a general discharge for misconduct “based on the 
individual’s overall military record or the severity of the incident(s) which results in discharge.” 

 

 

 
Regulations About DD 214 Entries 
 
 
the following regulations: 
 

Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  the  manual  for  preparing  DD  214s,  contains 

Block 12a. Date Entered Active Duty This Period. Enter the date of entry on active duty.  
 
Block 12b. Separation Date This Period. Enter the effective date of release/discharge. … 
 
Block 12c. Net Active Service This Period. Enter the years, months, and days of service creditable 
for basic pay purposes for the period from date entered active duty this period (block 12a) through 
date of separation (block 12b). … Deduct all periods of lost time. 
 
Block 24. Character of Service (includes upgrades). Only “Character of Service” is to be entered--
do not include or indicate the type of discharge certificate being issued.  

1. Enlisted Personnel.  

a.  Discharge  Certificate  Issued.  Enter  in  capital  letters  "HONORABLE"; 
"UNDER  HONORABLE  CONDITIONS";  "UNDER  OTHER  THAN  HONORABLE 
CONDITIONS"; OR "DISHONORABLE", as appropriate and consistent with the reason 
and authority for separation. … 

 
Block 25. Separation Authority.  

1. Enlisted Personnel. Enter the appropriate separation authority associated with a partic-
ular authority and reason for separation as shown in the SPD Handbook, unless otherwise directed 
by the MPC-SEP. … 
 
Block 26. Separation Code. Enter the appropriate separation code (SPD) associated  with a parti-
cular authority and reason for separation as shown in the SPD Handbook or as stated by the MPC-
SEP in the message granting discharge authority.  
 
Block 27. Reenlistment Code.  
1. Enlisted Personnel. Enter the appropriate reenlistment code to denote whether or not  the mem-
ber  is  recommended  for  reenlistment.  Use  only  the  proper  reenlistment  code  associated  with  a 
particular SPD Code as shown in the SPD Handbook. … 
 
Block  28.  Narrative  Reason  for  Separation.  Only  the  narrative  reason,  i.e.  UNSUITABILITY, 
MISCONDUCT,  etc.  is  to  be  entered--do  not  enter  additional  information,  i.e.  “Due  to  frequent 
involvement with civil authorities, financial irresponsibility, etc.” 

 

Block 29. Dates and Time  Lost During This Period. Enter inclusive dates for all periods of time 
lost, whether pay was forfeited or not, during the period from the date of entry (block 12a) to the 
date  of  separation  (block  12b).  Include  periods  of  unauthorized  absence  (UA),  sickness  due  to 
misconduct (SKMC), confinement (CONF), and nonperformance of duty due to civil arrest (NPDI 
CIVIL), but do not identify types of time lost by other than "TL". If there are no periods to report, 
enter "NONE". Do not leave this block blank. (e.g., TL: 6-21-89 to 7-29-89, 11-1-89 to 1-4-89 or 
TL: NONE). 

 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook authorizes the following combina-
tions  of  codes  for  members  involuntarily  discharged  due  to  misconduct  in  accordance  with 
Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual by order of the Personnel Command: 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

SPD 
Code 

Narrative Reason 
for Separation 

Reentry 

Code 

                                                                                  
Explanation 

JKA  Pattern of 

RE-4 

Misconduct 

“resulting from a pattern of misconduct of a discreditable 
nature with civil or military authorities.” 

JKM  Misconduct 

RE-4 

“when a member engages in acts or misconduct not otherwise 
listed [in the handbook].” 

JKN  Misconduct 

RE-4 

“when member has established a pattern of misconduct con-
sisting solely of minor disciplinary infractions.” 

JKQ  Misconduct 

RE-4 

“when member has committed a serious military or civilian 
offense.” 

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 because it was received within three years of the decision of the Dis-
charge Review Board.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 block 12.a. of his DD 214 contains the wrong date of 
entry and that his general discharge, separation code, reenlistment code, and narrative reason for 
separation are unjust.  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.4    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.”5  

 
4. 

The  record  shows  that  on  November  19,  2007,  in  accordance  with  Article 
12.B.18.e. of the Personnel  Manual  then in  effect,  the applicant’s CO notified him that he  was 
initiating  the  applicant’s  discharge  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.18.b.3.a.    Under  the  latter  article, 
Commander,  Personnel  Command  may  discharge  a  member  for  misconduct  if  the  member  has 
committed a “serious offense,” which is an offense for which (1) the circumstances warrant sepa-

                                                 
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”). 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
5 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

ration and (2) the maximum penalty authorized under the UCMJ includes a punitive discharge.  
The applicant had been found guilty at special court-martial of violating Articles 128 and 134 of 
the  UCMJ.    The  maximum  punishment  for  a  violation  of  Article  134  includes  a  punitive  dis-
honorable  discharge.    The  circumstances  of  his  offense  show  that  the  applicant  had  sexually 
harassed several young female non-rates at his unit for several months and that he harassed and 
assaulted SA X even after SA X and a petty officer warned him to stop.  Officers in the appli-
cant’s chain of command reasonably concluded that the applicant could not be trusted to behave 
appropriately  around  female  servicemembers.    Therefore,  the  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s 
offense warranted separation.  The applicant received notification of the proposed discharge and 
of his right to consult counsel and to submit a statement pursuant to Article 12.B.18.e. of the Per-
sonnel  Manual,  which  rights  he  exercised.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  CO 
committed  no  error  or  injustice  in  initiating  the  applicant’s  discharge  for  misconduct  in  accor-
dance with Article 12.B.18.b.3.a. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  received  an  honorable  discharge 
because he received a Good Conduct Medal and received good performance evaluations.  How-
ever,  when  the  applicant  earned  the  Good  Conduct  Medal  in  July  2007,  he  was  already  under 
investigation for serious  offenses.   Under Article  12.B.2.f. of the Personnel  Manual,  a member 
may only receive an honorable discharge if he has demonstrated “[p]roper military behavior … 
with  due  consideration  for  the  member’s  age,  length  of  service,  grade,  and  general  aptitude.”  
The record shows that while the applicant was a 31-year-old petty officer with almost three years 
of service, he sexually harassed and assaulted young non-rates at his unit over a period of several 
months, which cannot be considered “proper military behavior.”  The Board finds that the appli-
cant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his general discharge under honor-
able conditions was erroneous or unjust. 

 
6. 

Although the applicant’s CO initiated the applicant’s discharge for misconduct in 
accordance  with  Article  12.B.18.b.3.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  and  Commander,  Personnel 
Command approved the CO’s discharge recommendation, the applicant’s discharge orders stated 
that  his  discharge  was  to  be  classified  under  separation  code  JKA,  “Pattern  of  Misconduct,” 
instead  of  JKQ,  “Misconduct,”  which  is  the  usual  classification  for  someone  being  discharged 
pursuant to Article 12.B.18.b.3.a. of the Personnel Manual.  Although unstated in the record, it is 
reasonable to assume that Commander, Personnel Command thought that the applicant’s pattern 
of sexual harassment warranted a “Pattern of Misconduct” discharge, rather than just a “Miscon-
duct” discharge.  In this regard, the Board notes that the applicant had been notified by his CO on 
November  19,  2007,  that  Commander,  Personnel  Command  would  ultimately  determine  what 
type of discharge he received.  It is possible that classifying a discharge for a pattern of sexual 
harassment as a “Pattern of Misconduct” is proper under the Coast Guard’s policy, but a pattern 
of sexual harassment is not listed as one of the causes for discharge under Article 12.B.18.b.2. of 
the Personnel Manual in 2008, which is titled “Pattern of Misconduct,” and a single court-martial 
does not appear to meet the terms of that paragraph or of the explanation for a JKA, “Pattern of 
Misconduct” discharge in the SPD Handbook: “resulting from a pattern of misconduct of a dis-
creditable nature with civil or military authorities.”  In light of these inconsistencies, the Board 
finds  that  the JKQ,  “Misconduct”  discharge  classification  proposed  by  the  applicant’s  CO  pur-
suant to  Article 12.B.18.3.a. of the Personnel  Manual  better describes the circumstances of the 
applicant’s  separation  because,  according  to  the  Coast  Guard,  he  was  convicted  of  assault  and 

 

 

assault  with  intent  to  commit  murder,  voluntary  manslaughter,  rape,  robbery,  sodomy,  arson, 
burglary, or housebreaking in violation of Article 128 and 134 of the UCMJ. 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  reentry  code  from  RE-4  to  RE-1, 
which would make him eligible to reenlist.  In light of his record of misconduct towards female 
servicemembers, the Board finds no basis for upgrading the applicant’s reentry code. 
 

7. 

8. 

The applicant’s discharge is currently documented on both a DD 214 and DD 215, 
which together show that he initially received a “General” discharge for “Misconduct,” but that it 
has been corrected to an “Under Honorable Conditions” discharge for a “Pattern of Misconduct.”  
Although they reflect the same characterization of discharge/service, a discharge “Under Honor-
able Conditions” sounds  much more positive than a “General” discharge, and  yet  the applicant 
must  show  both  documents  to  any  potential  employer  who  asks  to  see  his  discharge  papers, 
which is unjust.  The combination of the DD 214 and DD 215 unnecessarily emphasize the neg-
ative nature of the applicant’s discharge. 

 
9. 

The applicant alleged that the date of entry in block 12.a. of his DD 214 is errone-
ous and should be backdated by 20 days from August 8, 2004, to July 19, 2004. Under Chapter 
1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D, block 12.a. is supposed to show the date of enlistment, block 
12.b.  the  date  of  discharge,  and  block  12.c.  the  time  on  active  duty  between  those  two  dates 
minus any “time lost” due to confinement, which is then noted in block 29.  The record shows 
that the applicant  enlisted on July 19, 2004, was discharged on  February 14, 2008,  and had 20 
days of “time lost” in that period because he was confined from November 14 through December 
3, 2007.  Therefore, block 12.a. should be backdated 20 days to show the date July 19, 2004, but 
the  20  extra  days  must  be  entered  as  time  lost  in  block  29,  rather  than  as  active  duty  time  in 
block 12.c. 

 
10. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that partial relief should be granted by ordering the 

Coast Guard to issue the applicant a new DD 214 with the following entries: 

 

  Block 12.a. should show the date of entry as July 19, 2004. 
  Block 24 should show “Under Honorable Conditions” as the character of service. 
  Block 26 should show separation code JKQ.  
  Block 28 should show “Misconduct” as the narrative reason for separation. 
  Block 29 should show time lost from November 14, 2007, through December 3, 2007. 

 
In addition, the following remark should be entered in block 18 of the DD 214:  “Action 

taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

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

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  his  record  by  issuing  him  a  new  DD  214  with  the 

following changes incorporated therein: 

 

  Block 12.a. should show the date of entry as July 19, 2004. 
  Block 18 should include the remark, “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
  Block 24 should show “Under Honorable Conditions” as the character of service. 
  Block 26 should show separation code JKQ.  
  Block 28 should show “Misconduct” as the narrative reason for separation. 
  Block 29 should show time lost from November 14, 2007, through December 3, 2007. 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Barbara Walthers  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
No other relief is granted.