DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-232 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted according to 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 
completed  application  on August  25,  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). 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated May 2, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant,  now  a  Staff  Sergeant  in  the  Army  National  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to 
upgrade her Coast Guard reentry code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) to an RE-3, which would 
allow her to reenlist with a waiver and to change the narrative reason for separation on her dis-
charge form DD 214 from “Unsuitability” to “Hardship.”  The applicant alleged that she was a 
great  service  member  from  April  28,  1986,  to  January  18,  1989,  even  though  she  had  serious 
financial  and  personal  issues  while  taking  care  of  her  twin  toddlers.        She  alleged  that  her 
naiveté  and  immaturity  interfered  with  her  military  career  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant 
noted that after her discharge in  1989, she  has  enlisted in  the Army National  Guard, served on 
two  deployments,  been  promoted  to  E-6,  and  received  two  Army  Commendation  Medals,  an 
Army Achievement Medal, and a Bronze Star, in addition to other awards.  The applicant sub-
mitted  certificates  of  these  awards  and  also  her  annual  Army  performance  evaluations,  which 
contain  many  marks  of  “excellent”  and  show  that  her  current  duties  as  a  noncommissioned 
supply officer in charge include supervising others and being responsible for equipment and sup-
plies valued at $22 million.    

 
The  applicant  admitted  that  she  knew  about  her  RE  code  in  1989,  but  stated  that  at  the 
time, “she was not entirely sure that an RE code could be changed and I feel that after 22 yrs in a 
reserve status and 8 of those full time in the military that I have proven to be suitable for military 
service.” 

 

 

 

The  applicant’s  military  record  contains  significant  documentation  showing  that  she 
passed many bad checks while in the Coast Guard and was counseled many times on Page 7s and 
captain’s masts.  It also shows that she gave birth to twins in 1987. 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 20, 2011, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory  opinion in  which he  adopted the findings and analysis provided in  a memorandum  on the 
case submitted by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC), who recommend-
ed that the Board deny relief. 
 
 
PSC  stated  that  the  application  should  be  denied  for  its  untimeliness  because  the  appli-
cant  was  properly  discharged  for  financial  irresponsibility  and  she  has  not  submitted  any  evi-
dence showing that her discharge was erroneous or unjust.  In support of this recommendation, 
PSC submitted the following documents from the applicant’s record: 
 

  On  December  8,  1988,  the  applicant  submitted  a  “Request  for  Discharge”  through  her 
chain of command.  She stated that “[d]uring the past twelve months, I have experienced 
severe  financial  difficulties.    This  has  led  to  warrants  being  issued  against  me  for  bad 
checks.  My involvement with civil authorities has been ongoing and the worst is yet to 
come. … I realize that a less than Honorable Discharge may be awarded.  Regardless of 
the type of discharge, I will not object. … I realize that I have created my own problems, 
but I do not see any hope of satisfactorily resolving these problems in the near future.  I 
also  realize  that  a  discharge  will  not  relieve  me  of  my  civil  obligations,  but  will  quite 
possibly prevent future UCMJ action, which is inevitable if I remain in the Coast Guard.” 

  On December 12, 1988, the Group Commander forwarded the applicant’s request for dis-
charge and recommended that she receive an honorable discharge for “Unsuitability.”  He 
noted that court-martial charges had not yet been preferred but information regarding her 
financial  irresponsibility  was  still  coming  to  light  and  well  more  than  1,000  man-hours 
had been spent investigating complaints against her.  He noted that on August 16, 1988, 
the applicant had been awarded nonjudicial punishment for writing bad checks, but nev-
ertheless  went  to  a  local  store  that  afternoon  and  wrote  a  bad  check  for  $139.46.    He 
noted that some bad checks were still being processed. 

  On  December  19,  1988,  the  District  Commander  forwarded  the  applicant’s  request  for 
discharge to the Commandant, noting that the applicant had “brought a great deal of dis-
honor  to  the  Coast  Guard.”    He  also  noted  that  while  she  would  benefit  from  being 
discharged,  it  was  also  in  the  best  interest  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  discharge  her  expedi-
tiously. 

  On January 18, 1989, the applicant received an honorable discharge with a JMH separa-
tion  code, denoting financial irresponsibility;  an RE-4 reentry code;  and  “Unsuitability” 
as the narrative reason for separation on her DD 214. 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 24, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited her to respond within thirty days.  The Board received no response. 
 

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  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552.    The 
application was not timely filed under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) because it was filed more than three 
years  after  the  applicant  knew  that  she  had  been  discharged  for  “Unsuitability”  with  an  RE-4 
reentry code.  
 

2. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  an 
application  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.”  Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

 
3. 

Regarding  the  delay  of  her  application,  the  applicant  explained  that  she  “wasn’t 
entirely sure that an RE code could be changed” when she was discharged in 1989.  The Board 
finds that the applicant’s explanation for her delay is not compelling because she failed to show 
that anything prevented her from seeking correction of her record more promptly. 

 
4. 

The Board’s cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant 
has submitted insufficient evidence to prove that her narrative reason for separation and her RE-4 
code  are  erroneous  or  unjust.    Although  she  submitted  substantial  evidence  of  her  long-term, 
honorable  service  in  the Army  National  Guard,  she  submitted  nothing  showing  that  her  Coast 
Guard records are erroneous or unjust.  In this regards, the Board notes that there is no evidence 
that  the  applicant’s  financial  problems  were  caused  by  hardship  or  that  she  is  no  longer  finan-
cially  irresponsible.  Her  Coast  Guard  records  are  presumptively  correct.  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b).  
Based  on  the  record  before  it,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  claim  cannot  prevail  on  the 
merits. 

 
5. 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 
 

 

 

 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  for  correction  of  her 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Peter G. Hartman 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.