DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-186 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

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  June  16,  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). 

 
This  final  decision,  dated  March  16,  2012,  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  received  a  general  discharge  “under  honorable  conditions”  on  May  25, 
2005, with  a JPD separation code for “alcohol rehabilitation failure” and an RE-4 reentry code 
(ineligible  to  reenlist)  on  his  discharge  form  DD  214.    Pursuant  to  a  decision  of  the  Discharge 
Review Board (DRB), on May 10, 2010, the Coast Guard issued a DD 215 to correct the appli-
cant’s separation code and narrative reason for separation on his DD 214 to JND and “miscella-
neous/general reasons,” respectively.  The applicant asked the BCMR to order the Coast Guard 
to reissue his DD 214 to incorporate the less prejudicial information and to upgrade his reentry 
code as well.  The applicant stated that he wants his reentry code upgraded so that he can enlist 
in the Air Force to get tuition assistance and prove that he can serve his country honorably. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On September 30, 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard at age 19.  Upon com-
pleting  boot  camp,  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  a  river  buoy  tender.    On  January  6,  2004,  he 
was counseled about the unit’s rules and policies, including alcohol policy. 
 
 
On September 17, 2004, the applicant was directed on a Page 7 not to enter another mem-
ber’s  room  unless  invited  by  that  member  and  not  to  borrow  or  use  other  members’  personal 
property without permission.  The Page 7 noted that he had been verbally counseled about these 
issues and policies already and that further infractions would result in charges. 

 

 

On November 23, 2004, the applicant was counseled on a Page 7 about failing to report 

 
 
On  November  22,  2004,  the  applicant  was  counseled  on  a  Page  7  for  having  allowed  a 
guest to operate the shore-side detachment’s riding mower in a reckless and dangerous manner.  
His  visitor  privileges  were  suspended  for  two  months  and  he  was  advised  that  additional  inci-
dents would result in disciplinary action. 
 
 
for morning muster and arriving 45 minutes later after being called by his supervisor. 
 
 
On  December  14,  2004,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  mast  after  being  arrested  on 
November 27, 2004, for driving while intoxicated (DWI).  He was charged with disobeying an 
order  by  drinking  while  underage  and  with  bringing  discredit  upon  the  Armed  Forces.    His 
punishment included restriction  to  the station with extra duties for seven days and reduction to 
pay grade E-1. 
 
 
On January 11, 2005, the applicant was counseled about being out of uniform by wearing 
the wrong belt on January 10, 2005, and about wearing the wrong belt again on January 11 even 
though the correct belt was available locally.  He was ordered to purchase the correct belt before 
morning muster the next day. 
 
 
On January 12, 2005, the applicant underwent screening for alcohol abuse or dependency 
as a result of his arrest for DWI.  On January 25, 2005, he completed a Substance Abuse Aware-
ness Seminar. 
 
 
On January 26, 2005, the applicant was placed on report for failing to obey an order and 
bringing discredit upon the Armed Forces because he had been treated for a gunshot wound on 
January 17, 2005, and the emergency room doctor reported that the applicant had been drinking 
alcohol.    On  February  1,  2005,  the  applicant’s  command  entered  a  Page  7  in  his  record  noting 
that  the  applicant  had  received  a  gunshot  wound  while  on  liberty  and  that  a  hospital  report 
showed that he had consumed alcohol while underage.  The command advised him that this con-
duct constituted his second “alcohol incident” and that he would be recommended for discharge. 
 
 
On February 10, 2005, the applicant’s command advised him on a Page 7 that his arrest 
for DWI while underage was his first “alcohol incident” and that he would be recommended for 
discharge if he  received  a second one.   On another Page 7 dated February  10, 2005, the  appli-
cant’s  command  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  told  at  mast  that  his  arrest  for  DWI  on 
November 27, 2004, constituted his first alcohol incident and that a second one would cause him 
to be recommended for discharge. 
 
 
On  February  10,  2005,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  mast  for  disobeying  an  order  by 
carrying a weapon onto Coast Guard property on February 8, 2005, without the approval of the 
command.  He was awarded 30 days of restriction to the station with extra duties and forfeiture 
of $450.00. 
 
 
On  February  10,  2005,  the  Group  Commander  notified  the  applicant  in  writing  that  he 
had  initiated  the  applicant’s  discharge  because  of  the  two  alcohol  incidents.    The  Group  Com-

 

 

mander  noted  that  he  was  recommending  that  the  applicant  receive  a  general  discharge  based 
upon his multiple infractions and advised the applicant that he had a right to consult a lawyer, to 
object  to  the  discharge,  and  to  submit  a  statement  on  his  own  behalf.    The  applicant  acknowl-
edged  the  notification  and  objected  to  the  proposed  discharge  but  waived  his  right  to  submit  a 
statement. 
 
 
On February 22, 2005, the Group Commander sent the Coast Guard Personnel Command 
a recommendation that the applicant receive a general discharge because of his two alcohol inci-
dents.    The  Group  Commander  listed  the  applicant’s  multiple  infractions  and  also  noted  that 
although the applicant claimed that he had been shot in the leg by an unknown assailant  on the 
street on January 17, 2005, the police had reported that there were no traces of blood, bullets, or 
shell  casings  at  the  alleged  scene  and  that  the  nature  of  the  wound  indicated  that  the  applicant 
was  sitting  down  at  the  time  he  was  shot.    The  Group  Commander  stated  that  the  applicant’s 
repeated descriptions of the event contained many inconsistencies and that he could not provide a 
reasonable explanation for the incident. 
 
 
On  February  27,  2005,  the  applicant  was  counseled  about  having  made  123  minutes 
worth of long distance phone calls on Coast Guard cell phones, including 65 consecutive minutes 
while he was on watch.   
 
 
On March 3, 2005, the applicant was discovered with beer  in the barracks and a female 
guest and an infant in his room after hours.  Witnesses reported that his breath smelled of alco-
hol,  he  was  overheard  asking  another  member  to  claim  possession  of  the  beer,  and  he  then 
blamed  the  alcohol  on  his  female  guest.    The  applicant  also  used  profanity  when  speaking  to 
superior petty officers.  He was placed on report for failing to  obey an order and insubordinate 
conduct. 
 
 
On March 7, 2005, the applicant was placed on report for failing to obey an order after he 
admitted  to  being  the  owner  of  a  bottle  of  gin  found  in  the  station’s  refrigerator,  contrary  to 
station rules. 
 
 
On April 18, 2005, the District Commander endorsed the recommendation that the appli-
cant receive a general discharge and further recommended that he receive an RE-4 reentry code. 
 
 
without express permission and to obtain permission for any personal visitors to the unit. 
 
 
On April 20, 2005, the applicant was counseled about his failure to qualify as a riverdeck 
seaman and boat crewmember in a timely manner.  He was placed on port and starboard duty to 
facilitate his completion of the qualifications. 
 
 
On  April  27,  2005,  the  Personnel  Command  issued  orders  for  the  applicant  to  be  sepa-
rated with  a  general  discharge due to  “alcohol rehabilitation failure”  and  an RE-4 reentry  code 
within 30 days.  The applicant was discharged on May 25, 2005. 
 

On April 19, 2005, the applicant was directed not to use any of the station’s cell phones 

 

 

In  2009,  the  applicant  petitioned  the  DRB  to  upgrade  his  discharge  from  general  to 
honorable  and  to  upgrade  his  reentry  code.    The  DRB  found  that  the  applicant’s  general  dis-
charge with an RE-4 was proper and equitable based on his pattern of misconduct, “disregard for 
authority, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and a severe lack of integrity.”  
However,  the  DRB  recommended  that  the  applicant’s  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  for 
separation be changed “to reflect Miscellaneous/General reasons as a more appropriate narrative 
reason  given  the  lack  of  documentation  regarding  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure.”    On  April  23, 
2010, the Coast Guard Chief of Staff reviewed the DRB’s recommendation and approved it, cor-
recting  the  applicant’s  separation  code  to  JND  and  his  narrative  reason  for  separation  to  “mis-
cellaneous/general  reasons.”    The  DD  215  showing  these  corrections  was  issued  on  May  10, 
2010. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  September  9,  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 submitted by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).  
 
 
PSC  stated  that  Coast  Guard  policy  in  ALCOAST  125/10  requires  use  of  an  RE-4  “for 
cases involving DUI, associated alcohol related misconduct, or members who fail to complete or 
refuse treatment.”  Therefore, PSC stated, the applicant’s reentry code should not be upgraded.  
PSC  also  concurred  in  the  DRB’s  finding  that  the  applicant  record  of  misconduct  and  “severe 
lack of integrity” supported the RE-4. 
 
 
and force as a DD 214.”  PSC stated that “when a DD 215 is issued, a new DD 214 is not.” 
 

PSC stated that the DD 215 is the form for correcting a DD 214 and “has the same weight 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  20,  2011,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to submit a response within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook, a member involuntarily dis-
charged for “miscellaneous/general reasons” with a JND under Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel 
Manual may receive either an RE-4 or RE-1 (eligible to reenlist) reentry code. 
 
 
ALCOAST 125/10 states that the JND separation code may also be used for unsuitability 
discharges under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual and that an RE-3 may be assigned for 
members separated as a result of two alcohol incidents but that an “RE-4 is prescribed for cases 
involving  DUI,  associated  alcohol-related  misconduct,”  or  failure  or  refusal  to  complete  treat-
ment. 
 

 

 

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  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  
Although the application was filed more than three  years after the applicant’s discharge, it was 
filed  within  three  years  of  the  decision  of  the  DRB.    Therefore,  under  Ortiz  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the application is considered timely. 

3. 

4. 

 
2. 

 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  reentry  code  from  RE-4  to  RE-1 
and to order the Coast Guard to issue him a new DD 214 incorporating the corrections made by 
the DRB.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed informa-
tion in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears 
the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erro-
neous or unjust. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  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.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sand-
ers v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his reentry 
code  should  be  upgraded  to  RE-1.    His  record  of  misconduct  fully  supports  the  decision  of 
Commander,  Personnel  Command  to  award  him  an  RE-4,  and  the  RE-4  is  correct  pursuant  to 
SPD Handbook and ALCOAST 125/10. 
 
 
Because employers often demand to see veterans’ DD 214s before hiring them, it 
is very important for DD 214s to be fair and not to unduly tarnish members’ records.  Although 
the applicant was arrested for DWI and clearly failed to obey the law about underage drinking on 
numerous occasions, in light of the highly prejudicial nature of a discharge by reason of “alcohol 
rehabilitation  failure,”  the  Board  finds  that  the  corrections  made  to  the  applicant’s  DD  214  by 
issuance of a DD 215 should be made, instead, by issuing him a new DD 214.   
 
 
Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by ordering the Coast Guard to issue 
the applicant a new DD 214 incorporating the corrections made on the DD 215 issued on May 
10, 2010.  In addition, the following sentence shall be added to the remarks in block 18 because a 
duplicate DD 214 is being issued: “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.”  The applicant’s 
request for an upgraded reentry code should be denied. 
 
 

5. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted in part as follows:   

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Paul B. Oman 

 

No other relief is granted. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  him  a  new  DD  214  incorporating  the  corrections  made  on 
the DD 215 issued on May 10, 2010.  In addition, the following sentence shall be added to the 
remarks in block 18 because a duplicate DD 214 is being issued: “Action taken pursuant to order 
of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Jeffrey E. VanOverbeke 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer