DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-237 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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 upon receipt of 
the  applicant’s  completed  application  on August  25,  2011,  and  subsequently  prepared  the  final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  17,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  changing  the  reason  for  his 
separation  from  “unsuitability”  to  one  that  is  more  favorable.    He  alleged  that  it  was  unjust  to 
give  him  an  unsuitability  discharge  after  he  served  on  active  duty  for  16  years  and  received  4 
good conduct awards, as well as several other awards and decorations. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on July 31, 2011.  He also stated 
it is in the interest of justice to excuse any untimeliness because listing unsuitability as the reason 
for his discharge could cause future employers to question his character.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The military record indicates that the applicant  enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1979 and 
was  discharged  on  July  31,  1995.    It  also  shows  that  on  September  6,  1994,  an  administrative 
remarks page (Page 7) was placed in the applicant’s record advising the applicant that on August 
18,  1994,  the  command  received  notification  that  he  was  delinquent  on  his  cellular  phone  bill.  
The  page  7  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  counseled  about  his  financial  irresponsibility  on 
May 2, 1994, because he had written an insufficient funds check to a federal building cafeteria.  
The page 7 advised the applicant of the following: 

 

 

 

In  accordance  with  section  12-B-16  of  the  .  .  .  Personnel  Manual,  you  are 
informed this date that you are being considered for unsuitability discharge due to 
financial irresponsibility and are hereby placed on a 6 month probationary period 
commencing 12 September 1994.  If you fail to demonstrate sufficient progress in 
overcoming this deficiency, you will be recommended for discharge.   
 

  # 

# 

# 

 
Counseling  sessions  will  be  conducted  and  documented  by  your  staff  supervisor 
twice monthly.   In addition,  you are required to  report the status  of this  and any 
other  outstanding  debts  to  your  supervisor  (including  a  copy  of  the  cellular  one 
statement) on a monthly basis during the probationary period.   
 
On March 7, 1995, the applicant met the provisions of his 6-month probationary period 

for financial irresponsibility and was released from probation.   

 
On May 2, 1995, one of the applicant’s creditors wrote to his command complaining that 

the applicant was behind in his payments on a debt.   
 
 
On May 25, 1995, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant that 
the CO was recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of 
unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.  
 
 
On June 1, 1995, the applicant signed a statement wherein he acknowledged notification 
of  the  proposed  discharge,  waived  his  right  to  make  a  statement,  waived  his  right  to  an 
administrative discharge board, and did not object to the discharge.    
 
 
On  June  6,  1995,  the  applicant’s  CO  recommended  that  the  Commander,  Military 
Personnel  Command  (MPC)  discharge  the  applicant  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  financial 
irresponsibility.  The CO stated that the applicant has established a record of indebtedness that he 
has been unable to manage.  The CO told the Commander that the applicant had fallen back into 
his old mode of acquiring debt without a means to manage it two months after completing a six-
month probationary period. 
 
 
On July 10, 1995, MPC informed the applicant’s CO that the applicant was entitled to an 
administrative  separation  board  because  he  had  more  than  8  years  of  military  service.    MPC 
required the CO to provide the applicant with written notification of his right to a hearing and to 
counseling by a lawyer.  MPC noted that the applicant could waive the administrative hearing in 
writing.   
 
 
condition that MPC authorize a discharge under honorable conditions or higher. 
 
On  July  14,  1995,  MPC  approved  the  applicant’s  honorable  discharge  from  the  Coast 
 
Guard  under  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  directed  that  “JNC”  (involuntary 
discharge due to unacceptable conduct) be assigned as the separation code.   

On July 11, 1995, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board on 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  partial  relief,  in  accordance  with  a 
memorandum from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 

PSC  noted  that  the  applicant  was  untimely  and  could  be  denied  for  that  reason.    PSC 
stated that “the only mention the applicant makes regarding the untimeliness  . . . is ‘[t]his could 
cause any future employer concern about my character.”’   
 

PSC recommended that the narrative reason on the applicant’s DD 214 be changed from 
“unsuitability” to “unacceptable conduct” to match the JNC separation code.  In recommending 
this relief, the Coast  Guard stated that ALCOAST 562/08 issued after the applicant’s discharge 
stated  that  “block  28  (narrative  reason  for  separation)  of  a  DD  214  shall  specify  only  the 
narrative reason for separation found in the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook for 
a corresponding code.”  The corresponding reason for the “JNC” separation code is unacceptable 
conduct.   
 

 PSC  did  not  recommend  any  other  relief  and  asserted  that  the  applicant  had  not 

demonstrated any error or injustice in his record, except for the one noted.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  November  2,  2011,  the  Board  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 

 
 
applicant for his response.  The Board did not receive a reply. 
 

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 section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.  

 
 
2.    The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military  record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  the  alleged 
error  or  injustice.    See  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b).    Although  the  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not 
discover the alleged error until July 31, 2011, the DD 214 that he signed and received upon his 
discharge  clearly  states  “unsuitability”  as  the  narrative  reason  for  separation.    Therefore,  the 
Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant knew he had been 
discharged for “unsuitability” upon his discharge from the Coast Guard in 1995.  The application 
was submitted approximately thirteen years beyond the statute of limitations.  
 
 
3.    The  applicant  argued  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  untimeliness 
because the unsuitability narrative reason for separation may cause future employers to question 

 

 

his character.  However, the applicant presented no evidence that he has suffered in his civilian 
employment due to  having unsuitability listed  as the narrative reason  for separation on his  DD 
214.    Therefore,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  to  excuse  the  untimeliness  for  this  reason.          In 
addition,  the  explanation  offered  by  the  applicant  does  not  explain  why  he  did  not  take  action 
sooner to correct the alleged error.    
 

4.    The  Board  may  still  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  if  it  finds  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  in  assessing  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  stated  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.  
 

5.  The  Board  finds that it is  in  the interest  of justice to  excuse the untimeliness in  this 
case based upon the strength of its merits.  In this regard, the Board notes that the Coast Guard’s 
advisory opinion recommended a change in the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation.   

 
6.    The  advisory  opinion  recommended,  and  the  Board  agrees,  that  the  applicant’s  DD 
214 should be corrected to show “unacceptable conduct” instead of “unsuitability” as the reason 
for  his  separation.    In  this  regard,  PSC  noted  that    ALCOAST  562/08  states  that  “block  28 
(narrative  reason  for  separation)  of  a  DD  214  shall  specify  only  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation  found  in  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook  for  a  corresponding 
code.”  Under the SPD Handbook, a JNC separation code requires “unacceptable conduct” as the 
narrative  reason  for  separation.    Although  ALCOAST  562/08  was  issued  in  2008  after  the 
applicant’s discharge, the advisory opinion stated  that as a matter of equity, the applicant’s DD 
214  should  be  corrected  to  reflect  current  policy.    The  Board  received  no  objection  from  the 
applicant to the Coast Guard’s recommendation. 

 
7.  Therefore, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted in part by correcting his 

narrative reason for separation to “unacceptable conduct.” 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record  is  granted  in  part.    His  DD  214  shall  be  corrected  to  show  the  reason  for  separation  in 
block 28 as “unacceptable conduct.”   

 
No other relief is granted.   

  
 
Lillian Cheng 

 

 

 

 
Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 

 
Barbara Walthers