DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-036 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Ulmer, Chair: 
 
 
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  application  was 
docketed  on  December  8,  2003,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application 
and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  9,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record by removing (1) an 
administrative remarks (page 7) page that terminated her eligibility period for a Good 
Conduct  award,  (2)  a  page  7  documenting  her  First  Alcohol  Incident,  and  (3)  an 
unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  on  her  performance  evaluation  for  the  period  ending 
December 30, 2002.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant denied that she was involved in an alcohol incident on December 
18, 2002.   She stated that she was late for work on the morning of December 18, 2002, 
because she forgot to set her alarm clock and overslept.  She denied that her tardiness 
was the result of alcohol she consumed the previous night.   She stated that she was not 
given a Blood Alcohol or Breathalyzer test and that a Navy counseling and assistance 
center found that she did not abuse alcohol and that she was not alcohol dependent.  
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  other  individuals  at  the  unit  who  had  engaged  in 
behavior similar to that she is alleged to have committed were given warnings that any 
such future behavior would result in disciplinary action.  In contrast, she was not given 
a warning but a page 7 documenting a First Alcohol Incident. The applicant submitted 
the  following  examples  of  the  page  7s  given  to  other  members  of  the  unit  who  were 
involved in situations similar to her own.  

 
1.  One individual was counseled on a page 7 because he reported to work 3.5 

hours late due to oversleeping.   

 
2.    A  second  individual  was  given  a  page  7  documenting  an  Alcohol  Related 
Situation when an officer smelled alcohol on this individual's breath and observed that 
the individual was having some difficulty performing his duties while standing watch. 

 
 3. A third individual received a page 7 documenting an Alcohol Incident after he 
reported  to  work  six  hours  late  after  a  night  of  drinking.  This  individual  had  been 
warned two weeks earlier about his behavior when he reported to work one hour late 
smelling of alcohol.  

 
4.  A fourth individual was given a page 7 documenting an Alcohol Incident after 
the individual was arrested for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of 
0.14% and for leaving the scene of an accident. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The  applicant  failed  to  report  to  work  by  0645  on  December  18,  2002. 
Subsequently,  unit  personnel  contacted  her  by  telephone  at  home.  After  being 
awakened by the telephone call, the applicant quickly got dressed and reported to work 
around 0805.  According to the record, her chief petty officer, YNC D, detected an odor 
of stale alcohol coming from the applicant while counseling her about her tardiness.  He 
reported the event to his supervisors.  The applicant was placed on report for being on 
unauthorized absence from 0645 to 0805 on December 18, 2002. The command ordered 
a  preliminary  investigation  into  the  alleged  unauthorized  absence  and  surrounding 
circumstances.  
 
 
The  preliminary  investigating  officer  (IO)  completed  the  investigation  into  the 
alleged  unauthorized  absence  charge  on  December  27,  2002.    He  found  that  YNC  D, 
CWO2  K,  and  LT  W  detected  an  odor  of  alcohol  coming  from  the  applicant  on  the 
morning in question.   
 
 
 

The IO offered the following opinions: 

1.  [The applicant] went out with her visiting family and friends on the night 
of 17 December 2002 and had drinks.  [The applicant] got back late and went 
to bed.  She overslept the following morning.   
 
2.  Upon being woken up by a phone call from a co-worker [the applicant] 
got dressed and went to work in a hurried manner and did not take the time 
to  carry  out  a  morning  routine  of  personal  hygiene.    When  she  arrived  at 
work she had the odor of alcohol from the previous night. 
 
3.    Based  on  her  supervisor's  statements  of  her  being  a  proven  performer, 
and her ability to carry out her duties uninterrupted on the day in question, I 
think that [the applicant] rushed to get to work and did not take the time to 
ready  herself  properly  for  the  work  day,  i.e.,  no  breakfast,  no  shower  or 
brushing teeth.  This contributed to the alcohol smell on her.   
 
4.    There  is  no  indication  of  previous  tardiness  to  work,  or  any  other 
documentation of alcohol situations or incidents in relation to [the applicant].  
I  believe  that  this  was  a  one-time  occurrence  and  will  not  happen  in  the 
future.  

The  IO  made  the  following  recommendation  with  respect  to  disposing  of  the 

 
 
charge against the applicant. 
 

I  recommend  that  no  NJP  [non-judicial  punishment]  be  awarded.  
However,  I  do  recommend  that  [the  applicant]  be  counseled  and 
administrative remarks be drafted to document this occurrence.   

On December 30, 2002, the executive officer dismissed the unauthorized absence 

 
 
charge against the applicant. 
 
On  December  30,  2002,  a  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant's  record 
 
documenting an alcohol incident under Article 20.B. of the Personnel Manual.  The CO 
informed  the  applicant  that  he  had  determined  that  her  abuse  of  alcohol  was  a 
significant and causative factor in her unauthorized absence on December 18, 2002.  He 
further  informed  the  applicant  that  the  incident  was  considered  her  First  Alcohol 
Incident. 
 

An enlisted employee review (EER)1 dated December 30, 2002, was prepared as 
required by the Personnel Manual because of the CO's determination that the applicant 
had been involved in an alcohol incident. 
 

                                                 
1   EER is the current name for an enlisted performance evaluation. 

On April 23, 2003, the applicant was counseled that the unsatisfactory mark in 

 
On  February  18,  2003,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  Naval  hospital  to 
determine  whether  she  abused  alcohol  or  required  alcohol  related  treatment.    The 
evaluation report stated that the applicant did not meet the criteria for alcohol abuse or 
any criteria for treatment.  It further stated that she was returned to duty. 
 
 
conduct terminated the running of her eligibility period for a Good Conduct award.  
 
Statements submitted by the applicant 
 
 
The  applicant's  command  master  chief  submitted  a  letter  on  the  applicant's 
behalf.        He  stated  that  outstanding  was  the  only  word  to  describe  the  applicant's 
performance.  He further stated the following: 
 

After reviewing the investigation and in my professional experience 
I  would  have  determined  that  the  situation  was  an  alcohol  related 
situation  vise  an  alcohol  incident.    [The  applicant]  was  forty-five 
minutes  late  to  work,  but  did  work  all  day  and  past  the  working 
hours without loosing [sic] any productivity.  I greatly appreciate the 
board to take into consideration my request of eliminating this page 
seven from her record.  [The applicant] is truly the example of our 
future Coast Guard generation and the Coast Guard Core Values.   

An YN1 also wrote a statement for the applicant.  He agreed with the comments 

 
 
of the command master chief. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  March  30,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  facts,  analysis,  and 
recommendation of the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), which 
was attached to the advisory opinion as Enclosure (1).   
 
 
 

CGPC recommended that the Board correct the applicant's record as follows: 

a.  Remove from the applicant's records the Administrative Remarks [page 
7] dated December 30, 2002, documenting the events of December 17-18, 
2002,  as  an  Alcohol  Incident,  and  replace  [it]  with  a  new  administrative 
remarks documenting [the event] as an Alcohol Related Situation.   
 
b.    Remove  from  the  applicant's  record  the  Employee  Review  dated 
December  30,  2002  and  any  associated  Administrative  Remarks  that 
document the award of a bad conduct mark.  (Although the applicant only 

requests removal of the bad conduct mark, the entire evaluation should be 
removed  since  the  original  reason  for  conducting  the  evaluation  will  no 
longer exist.) 
 
c.  Restore the applicant's Good Conduct Award eligibility period effective 
to December 30, 2002. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  CO's  determination  that  the  applicant's  drinking  was  a 
causative  factor  in  the  applicant's  behavior  on  December  18,  2002  was  reasonable, 
despite  a  different  opinion  of  the  situation  by  the  investigating  officer,  the  command 
master  chief,  and  a  YN1.    CGPC  noted  that  despite  the  incident,  the  applicant's  CO 
holds  a  high  opinion  of  her  and  her  performance  and  her  potential  for  a  successful 
career in the Coast Guard. 
 
 
In recommending relief, CGPC noted that the CO was given the opportunity to 
review the applicant's BCMR application and to provide input and recommendations. 
CGPC stated that the CO had reconsidered his original determination in this matter and 
requested  that  the  applicant's  record  be  corrected  to  reflect  this  event  as  an  alcohol 
related  situation. 
  CGPC  stated  that  he  respected  and  supported  the  CO's 
recommendation to grant relief. 
 
 
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 1, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
Article 10.B.2.a. states that supporting remarks are required for an unsatisfactory 
 
conduct mark.  An unsatisfactory conduct mark resulting from an alcohol incident must 
be supported by an adverse remarks entry. 
 
 
member who has an alcohol incident.  
 
Article  10.B.8.  (Good  Conduct  Award  Eligibility)  states  that  a  new  period  of 
 
eligibility  for  the  Good  Conduct  award  begins  any  time  a  member  receives  an 

Article  10.B.5.b.  states  that  a  special  employee  review  (EER)  is  required  for  a 

unsatisfactory mark in conduct.  It further states that the rating chain must assign an 
unsatisfactory mark in conduct whenever an individual has an alcohol incident.   
 
Article 20.A.2.d. defines a Alcohol Incident as "[a]ny behavior, in which alcohol 
 
is determined, by the commanding officer,  to be a significant or causative factor that 
results in the member's loss of ability to perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon 
the uniformed services, or is a violation of [law] . . ." 
 

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.  The application was timely. 

 
2.    The  Board  finds  the  evidence  of  record  insufficient  to  support  a  conclusion 
that the applicant's tardiness to work on December 18, 2002, resulted from her use of 
alcohol the night before.  The applicant was out late the night of December 17, 2002, and 
had a few drinks with family and friends.   After being awakened by a telephone call 
from her unit the next morning, the applicant rushed without hesitation and reported to 
work. She smelled of alcohol, but there is no other definitive evidence that alcohol was a 
significant  factor  in  her  tardiness.    The  odor  of  alcohol  on  the  applicant,  by  itself,  is 
insufficient evidence for the Board to conclude that she overslept because of consuming 
alcohol, rather than a failure to set her alarm clock as she claimed. In this regard, the 
Board  notes  there  was  no  evidence  that  she  was  hung  over,  listless,  or  demonstrated 
any  other  signs  of  oversleeping  due  to  alcohol  consumption  the  night  before.  
Moreover, upon reporting to her unit and after some counseling she went right to work.   
She worked the remainder of the day, completing all of her assignments, without any 
problem. Therefore, the Board finds that the page 7 documenting the event of December 
18, 2002, as an Alcohol Incident and the corresponding performance marks, particularly 
the unsatisfactory conduct mark were placed in the applicant's record in error.    

 
3.  The  Board  is  persuaded  in  the  above  finding  by  the  CO's  support  of  the 
applicant's request and his belief that the event of December 18, 2002 should have been 
documented as an Alcohol Related Situation rather than as a First Alcohol Incident.  

 
4.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard's recommendation for relief 
and  will  direct  that  the  applicant's  record  be  corrected  in  accordance  therewith, 
including  substituting  a  page  7  documenting  the  event  of  December  18,  2002  as  an 
Alcohol  Related  Situation  rather  than  an  Alcohol  Incident.    Article  20.B.2.d.  of  the 
Personnel Manual defines Alcohol Related Situation "as any situation in which alcohol 

was  involved  or  present  but  was  not  considered  a  causative  factor  for  a  member's 
undesirable  behavior  or  performance."    This  provision  requires  that  members  be 
counseled and that the counseling is documented on a page 7.   

 
5.    The  Board's  order  for  a  substitute  page  7  documenting  an  Alcohol  Related 
Situation  accurately  reflects  the  circumstances  as  attested  to  by  the  CO  and  does  not 
offend  the  Board's  policy  of  not  adding  documents  to  a  record  that  would  make  the 
record  worse.    In  this  case,  a  page  7  documenting  an  Alcohol  Related  Situation  is  a 
counseling tool and not detrimental to the applicant's career.  Nor does it require the 
preparation of an EER.  In contrast, a page  7 documenting a First Alcohol Incident  is 
detrimental  to  a  career  because  a  second  such  entry  normally requires  administrative 
processing for separation from the Coast Guard.  See Article 20.B.2.h. of the Personnel 
Manual. 
  In  addition,  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  objection  to  this 
recommendation, which was a part of the relief recommended in the advisory opinion 
that was mailed to the applicant on April 1, 2004. Therefore, the Board concludes that 
she is satisfied with the relief recommended by the Coast Guard.  

 
5.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to relief. 
  

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

record is granted and her record shall be corrected as follows. 

 
The Administrative Remarks (page 7) dated December 30, 2002, documenting an 
Alcohol  Incident  shall  be  removed  from  her  record  and  replaced  with  a  page  7 
documenting  an  Alcohol  Related  Situation.    Such  page  7  shall  be  prepared  and 
processed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Personnel Manual. 

 
The  employee  review  dated  December  30,  2002,  and  all  related  page  7  entries 
documenting  an  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  and  the  termination  of  the  applicant's 
Good Conduct award eligibility period shall be removed from her record. 

 
The  applicant's  Good  Conduct  award  eligibility  shall  be  restored  retroactive  to 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

December 30, 2002, as if it were never terminated. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Marc J. Weinberger