N.B.:  The delegate of the Secretary approved the recommended 
Final Decision in this case (below Technical Amendment) on  
May 4, 1999. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 1997-174 

Technical Amendment 

AMENDMENT TO FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding conducted under 33 C.F.R. § 52.73 at the request of 
the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Military  Justice  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  consider  a 
technical amendment to the order issued by the Board in Docket No. 1997-174.  
The order was signed by the Deputy General Counsel on May 4, 1999. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  amendment,  dated  November  4,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

HISTORY OF BCMR DOCKET NO. 1997-174 

In  Docket  No.  1997-174,  the  applicant,  a  xxxxxxxxxxxx  with  16  years  of 
active duty service, had been honorably discharged for the “convenience of the 
government” after he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) during a general 
downsizing.  The applicant received NJP because, as a xxxxxxxx, he had ordered 
without authorization two pairs of xxxxxxx for a xxxxxxxxx trip by his unit.  He 
also  ordered  without  authorization  a  xxxxxxxxxx,  which  he  alleged  was  for 
another  ship  that  was  about  to  get  underway  when  it  discovered  it  lacked  a 
working  kit.    In  his  application  to  the  BCMR,  the  applicant  asked  either  to  be 
returned  to  active  duty  or  to  receive  separation  pay.    The  Chief  Counsel 
recommended that the Board deny relief, but the Board found that the applicant 
had been unjustly denied half separation pay.  It ordered the Coast Guard to cor-

rect the applicant’s record to show that he qualified for half separation pay and 
to pay the applicant the resulting sum due.  
 

CHIEF COUNSEL’S REQUEST 

 
 
On August 18, 1999, the Chief Counsel informed the BCMR that the Coast 
Guard may reenlist the applicant.  To “provide the service with the discretion to 
reenlist  the  member,”  the  Chief  Counsel  asked  the  Board  to  change  the  appli-
cant’s  separation  program  designator  (SPD)  code  and  reenlistment  (RE)  code.  
The Chief Counsel requested that the Board make a technical amendment to its 
order  in  Docket  No.  1997-174  to  change  the  applicant’s  SPD  code  from  JND 
(separation  for  miscellaneous/general  reasons)  to  JHJ  (unsatisfactory  perform-
ance) and to change his RE code from RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment) to RE-
3Y  (eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor:  unsatisfactory 
performance). 
 
 
The Chief Counsel attached to his request a memorandum from the Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), which stated that CGPC desires to reenlist 
the  applicant  and  that  “the  applicant’s  ‘embezzlement’  actions  were  unaccept-
able; however, they were performed ‘to get the job done for the unit,’ not for his 
own  personal  gain.”    CGPC  recommended  that  the  applicant’s  SPD  code  be 
changed  to  JHJ  and  that  his  reenlistment  code  be  changed  to  RE-3Y,  which 
would make him “ineligible for any type of separation pay.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S REQUEST 

 
 
The  BCMR  contacted  the  applicant  and  informed  him  of  the  Coast 
Guard’s  request.    The  applicant  was  uncertain  of  the  consequences  of  the 
changes  requested  by  the  Chief  Counsel  and  sought  the  advice  of  someone  in 
CGPC.    The  applicant  asked  CGPC  why  his  SPD  code  had  to  be  changed  and 
whether  just  changing  his  RE  code  to  RE-1  would  allow  the  Coast  Guard  to 
reenlist him.  CGPC informed the applicant that “when the BCMR comes back 
and asks us to change your code if we somehow change our mind and do not 
offer you reenlistment, then we will leave the code alone so as to allow for pay-
ment of separation pay.  Our intention is still to reenlist you as soon as that code 
change  allows.    If  the  BCMR  does  not  direct  the  change,  I  still  have  one  other 
avenue  that  I  think  we  [can]  pursue  to  bring  you  back  on  active  duty.”    As  a 
result of this advice, the applicant asked the Board simply to change his RE code 
from RE-4 to RE-1, rather than make the changes requested by the Chief Counsel 
because he does not believe those changes to be in his best interest.  The appli-
cant stated that reenlistment “cannot happen with an RE code of 4.” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
 
According  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD) 
Handbook, members assigned the applicant’s current SPD code, JND (involun-
tary  separation  for  miscellaneous/general  reasons)  may  receive  a  reenlistment 
code  of  either  RE-1  (recommended  for  reenlistment)  or  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment). 
 

According  to  the  SPD  Handbook,  a  member  assigned  the  SPD  code  JHJ 
(involuntary separation for unsatisfactory performance), which was requested by 
the  Chief  Counsel,  may  receive  a  reenlistment  code  of  either  RE-4  or  RE-3Y 
(eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor: unsatisfactory perform-
ance). 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  33 C.F.R. 

 The Chief Counsel asked the Board to amend its order in BCMR 
Docket  No.  1997-174  to  give  the  Coast  Guard  the  discretion  to  reenlist  the 
applicant.  To do so, the Chief Counsel asked (a) that the applicant’s SPD code be 
changed  from  JND,  which  means  involuntary  separation  for  miscellaneous/ 
general  reasons,  to  JHJ,  which  means  involuntary  separation  for  unsatisfactory 
performance; and (b) that his reenlistment code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3Y. 

The applicant stated that he wished to reenlist in the Coast Guard.  
However, he did not want his record to be made to appear worse than necessary, 
when changing his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-1 would accomplish the 
same  goal.    The  applicant  pointed  out  that  an  RE-1  code  is  authorized  for 
members assigned a JND separation code. 

The Chief Counsel’s requested changes would unnecessarily make 
the  applicant’s  record  appear  considerably  worse  than  it  does  now.    Since  the 
Coast Guard and the applicant apparently agree that he is fit to be reenlisted, the 
Board sees no reason not to correct his record by changing his reenlistment code 
to RE-1, without changing his SPD code for the worse. 

Accordingly,  the  Board’s  order  in  Docket  No.  1997-174  should  be 

amended to change the applicant’s reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-1. 

 

1. 
§ 52.73. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The applicant’s reenlistment code in block 27 of his DD form 214 shall be 

 
 
The  order  issued  by  the  Board  in  Docket  No.  1997-174  to  correct  the 
military record of former XXXXXXXXX, USCG, is hereby amended by adding the 
following correction: 
 
 
changed to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf 

 

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 
 

 

 
John A. Kern 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1997-174 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  It was commenced upon the BCMR’s 
receipt of the applicant’s application on September 2, 1997.  
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  11,  1999,  is  signed  by  the three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to 
 
correct  his  record  by  returning  him  to  active  duty  or,  in  the  alternative,  by 
making him eligible for separation pay. 
  

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  on  xxxxxxx,  199x,  after 
serving 16 years in the military, because of one mistake in judgment, and because 
the Coast Guard was downsizing at the time he was awarded nonjudicial pun-
ishment (NJP) for that mistake.  At the time of his discharge, the applicant was 
serving  as  a  xxxxxx  aboard  the  USCGC  xxxx.    He  described  his  work  and  the 
incident that led to his discharge as follows: 
 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x  I  have  gone  above  and  beyond  the  call  of  duty  as  far  as  doing  my  job  and 
helping out the other divisions during underway times.  I always felt that if my 
ship  got  underway  without  a  necessary  part  or  couldn’t  get  a  part  before  it 

sailed, I haven’t done my job.  I was a good xxxxxxx. . . .  I did bend the rules to 
accomplish  this  task  on  occasion,  but  when  you  are  at  an  operational  unit  you 
have to bend the rules now and then to get the mission completed.  I was always 
successful in having the material for the ship before we got underway or had it 
waiting for us when the ship was to hit its first port.  This practice is not new.  I 
was  taught  it.    I  added  a  xxxxxxxx  and  two  pairs  of  xxxxxxxxx  to  an  order  in 
xxxxxxx 199x.  The xxxxxxxx was for a fellow xxxxxxx for his help in obtaining 
log sheets for the QM’s before we got underway, and various other times he and 
others provided me with material that was urgently needed.  There was a three 
month backlog on this item and we were getting underway in 4 days when they 
discovered they were out.  We had a xxxxxxxxxx trip coming up and there was to 
be large amounts of xxxxxx to be done and that’s what the xxxxx were for.  The 
old adage of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours is as alive today as it ever 
was.  It’s a part of the unofficial supply system.  I was the Operations MAA and 
placed  a  separate  order  in  March  for  a  xxxxxxxx.    I  sent  a  cancellation  on  the 
xxxxx  because  I  felt  it  was  wrong.    I  did  receive  the  xxxxx  and  xxxxx.    I  had 
contracting authority at this time. . . .  
 
. . .  By the letter of the law I was wrong, but by the responsibility placed on me 
by being an xxxxxxxxxxxxx, if the material was not there when the ship takes in 
that  last  line,  the  command,  and  our  mission  will  suffer.    My  performance 
evaluations for xxxxxxxx 199x was a total of 119 points.  My evaluation for xxxxx 
9x  only  dropped  10  points  which  was  still  higher  than  most  of  the  “perfect” 
xxxxxxx. . . .  My command sent a letter to headquarters stating the facts, and that 
not only did they recommend my retention, but they didn’t want me transferred 
off the ship. 

 
 
The applicant submitted as evidence (see below) copies of the following:  a 
letter sent by his command to the Military Personnel Command (MPC) reporting 
his  NJP  and  recommending  his  retention;  a  letter  from  the  applicant  to  MPC 
requesting a waiver of his discharge pursuant to Article 4.A.14.(d) of the Person-
nel Manual; a letter from the applicant’s command endorsing his letter to MPC; a 
letter  from  the  applicant’s  district  commander  endorsing  his  letter  to  MPC;  a 
response  from  MPC  to  the  applicant’s  command  refusing  to  waive  the  appli-
cant’s  discharge;  his  last  two  performance  evaluations;  and  two  affidavits, 
including one from the Executive Officer he served under on the USCGC xxxx. 
 
 
The  applicant  further  stated  that  he  would  not  mind  being  placed  in  a 
lower pay grade and/or different rating than those he held at the time of his dis-
charge. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel 
 
 
On January 13, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s 

request for relief because the applicant had failed to prove that the Coast Guard 
had  committed  an  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  his  discharge.    The  Chief 
Counsel stated the following: 
 

The  Commandant’s  regulations  and  policy,  issued  pursuant  to  authority  dele-
gated by the Secretary bind the Board.  Moreover, the Board must give deference 
to the Coast Guard’s interpretation of laws that it is entrusted to administer, as 
well as to its implementing regulations.  Therefore, absent proof that the Com-
mandant’s  decision  was  arbitrary  or  capricious,  the  Board  should  defer  to  the 
decision made in this case. [citation omitted] 

 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  he 
received from the Commander of the Personnel Command on August 25, 1998, 
regarding the applicant’s case (see below). 
 
Memorandum of the Commander of the Personnel Command 
 
 
On  August  25,  1998,  the  Commander  of  the  MPC  recommended  to  the 
Chief Counsel that no relief should be granted.  The Commander explained that 
the applicant was not retained because of “security” concerns: 
 

 
[F]ull and half-separation pay is only authorized to members who are involun-
tarily separated from the service and enter into a written agreement to serve in 
the Coast Guard Ready Reserve for a period of no less than three years.  Mem-
bers that are not recommended for retention for one of the following conditions 
(security, homosexuality, alcohol abuse, and expiration of enlistment) can receive 
half separation pay.  No separation pay is authorized for members who request 
separation,  and  for  those  who  are  separated  for  unsatisfactory  performance, 
unsuitability, or misconduct. . . . 
 
The  applicant  is  not  entitled  to  full  or  half-separation  pay  because  he  did  not 
enter into a written agreement to serve in the Coast Guard Ready Reserve for a 

in  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  programs  occupy 
Members  serving 
positions  of  special  trust  which  frequently  require  them  to  control,  secure,  and 
issue a wide variety  of valuable government property, cash, accountable forms 
(e.g.,  credit  cards,  SF-44s,  etc.)  and  sensitive  financial  information.    The 
Commanding Officer shall handle all cases of a member’s financial impropriety 
as a security breach. 

 
 
The  Commander  stated  that  the  applicant  had  received  all  due  process 
during  his  discharge.    Members  being  downsized  “for  the  convenience  of  the 
government”  were  not  entitled  to  a  review  by  an  Administrative  Discharge 
Board (ADB) in 199x, although they are so entitled today.   
 

The  Commander  explained  the  applicant’s  failure  to  receive  separation 

pay as follows: 

period of not less than 3 years following separation from active duty.  This was 
not possible due to the RE-4 that he received, due to the nature of his discharge 
and the NJP that he was awarded because of embezzlement. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 19, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant copies of the advi-
sory  opinion  and  the  memorandum  from  MPC  and  invited  the  applicant  to 
respond within 15 days.  The applicant did not respond.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  October  5,  197x,  the  applicant  enlisted  for  six  years  in  the  Navy 
Reserve, where he served as a xxxxxx.  On October 5, 198x, he was discharged in 
order to enlist in the Coast Guard as a xxxxxx third class. 
 
 
On  December  1,  199x,  the  applicant  attended  a  one-hour  class  on  ethics 
covering standards of conduct and the Procurement Integrity Act.  In November 
199x, the applicant received a performance evaluation in which he received an 
average score of 5.41 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being highest) and was recom-
mended  for  advancement.    He  received  marks  of  7  for  “professional/specialty 
knowledge” and “working with others.” 
 
 
his record which stated as follows: 
 

On May 10, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer entered a Page 7 in 

. . .  [On] 27NOV9x and 11MAR9x [the applicant] violated a direct order given to 
him by the Executive Officer by purchasing items without the Executive Officer’s 
approval.  He violated this order by adding on unauthorized items to the bottom 
of an already approved SURF order in an attempt to embezzle said items from 
the U.S. Government for personal gain and use.  He also placed an entirely sepa-
rate  order  that  was also  an  attempt  to  embezzle  said  items  from  the  U.S.  Gov-
ernment for personal gain and use on a separate SURF sheet that was not signed 
or approved by the Executive Officer.  The total cost for all items was $xx.00.  For 
these  offenses  you  were  placed  on  report  by  the  Executive  Officer.    You  were 
taken to Captain’s Mast and found guilty . . . and awarded punishment.  Based 
on this incident and the lies that you told in an attempt to cover up this incident, 
you have earned a mark of 2 in the INTEGRITY dimension. . . .  Your perform-
ance, with the above stated exception, has been outstanding. . . . 

 
 
Also on May 10, 199x, the applicant’s command issued a disciplinary per-
formance  evaluation.    The  applicant  received  a  mark  of  2  for  “integrity”  and 
marks  of  3  for  “monitoring  work,”  “responsibility,”  “setting  an  example,”  and 
“loyalty.”  The remaining marks were seven 5s and ten 6s; the average mark was 
4.95. 
 

On May 11, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer notified the MPC of 
his offenses and NJP in accordance with Article 4-A-14 of the Personnel Manual.  
In his letter to the MPC, the commanding officer stated the following: 
 

[The applicant] is in an xxxxxxxx billet where he serves in a position of special 
trust and responsibility.  He has day to day contact with custody and issuance of 
a  wide  variety  of  Government  property  .  .  .  .    But  all  access  to  such  items  is 
constantly under the direct supervision of the Executive Officer. . . .  When the 
Supply  Petty  Officer  was  balancing  all  SURF  orders  he  came  across  one  SURF 

sheet with items added on and another without a signature and he reported it to 
the command. . . . 
 
[The  applicant’s]  performance,  with  the  above  exception,  has  been  outstanding 
throughout his entire tour.  Upon his reporting he discovered over $xxxx worth 
of  unaccounted  for  funds  that  were  improperly  handled  but  the  previous  xxx.  
[He] has also  saved this unit  money in many  other  ways . . . .  He continually 
looks out for all crewmembers aboard and their families.  He constantly looks for 
new  and  better  ways  to  improve  his  job  performance  and  that  of  his  subordi-
nates.    Being  the  senior  person  in  the  ship’s  office,  he  has  taken  on  the  role  of 
being in charge of the division.  Most administrative and personal problems and 
situations  are  now  handled  at  his  level  and  are  not  even  brought  up  to  the 
Executive Officer level. . . .  For the above stated reasons I not only recommend 
[the applicant] for retention in the Coast Guard and Xxxxxx rating, but I also do 
not want him transferred off of XXXX until he is tour complete.  I feel it would do 
a  great  disservice  to  CGC  XXXX,  the  Coast  Guard,  and  the  Xxxxxx  rate  to 
reassign [the applicant]. 

1. 
The  Commanding  Officer’s  favorable  recommendation  should  carry 
great weight and certainly deserves careful consideration.  There is every indica-
tion that [the applicant] has learned a valuable lesson from a mistake which he is 
not likely to repeat. 
 
2. 
The  misappropriations  appear  to  be  primarily  a  misguided  attempt  at 
“payback”  of  other  xxxxxxs  or  units  for  past  favors.    The  reference  to  “good 
intentions”  is  apparently  a  misguided  notion  rooted  in  supposed  “cumshaw” 

 
 
On August 15, 199x, the MPC sent a message ordering the applicant’s dis-
charge for the “convenience of the government for good and sufficient reasons.”  
The message also stated that the applicant was not entitled to an ADB.  It did not 
mention his reenlistment code. 
 
 
On August 15, 199x, the applicant wrote to the MPC acknowledging his 
mistakes and requesting a waiver of his discharge pursuant to Article 4-A-14(d) 
of the Personnel Manual.   
 
 
On  August  17,  199x,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  wrote  an 
endorsement to his request for a waiver.  The commanding officer described the 
punishment  that  had  been  ordered,  including  a  fine  of  $xx  (the  value  of  the 
property),  reduction  in  rate  to  an  E-5,  and  restrictions.    He  stated  that  the 
punishment  already  ordered  (some  of  which  was  suspended)  was  appropriate 
and in line with a first offense after many years of outstanding performance. 
 

On  September  12,  199x,  the  Commander  of  the  xxxxxxxx  Coast  Guard 
District sent to MPC an endorsement of the applicant’s request for a waiver.  The 
endorsement stated as follows: 
 

morals of days gone by.  Everyone understands what was wrong about this, and 
punishment has been imposed. 
 
3. 
Obviously, the Commanding Officer did not view this as an offense war-
ranting  punitive  discharge;  hence,  the  case  was  handled  at  NJP.    The  Com-
manding Officer having already made that disciplinary judgment, a subsequent 
discharge action—against his recommendation—seems ill-advised.  Such action 
could discourage commanders from taking prompt action if administrative out-
comes are perceived as disproportionate or beyond their control. 
 
4. 
Members  of  our  finance  staff,  who  have  worked  with  [the  applicant], 
share the Commanding Officer’s confidence in him and urge his retention.  This 
confidence warrants consideration of [the applicant’s] retention in the xx rating; 
and, at the very least, a chance to retrain in a new rating in order to continue his 
sixteen year Coast Guard career. 

 
 
On  September  22,  199x,  the  Commander  of  the  MPC  responded  to  the 
applicant’s request and accompanying waivers.  He stated that after careful con-
sideration of the letters, he was nevertheless denying the waiver for the follow-
ing reasons: 
 

. . . [The Coast Guard’s] success . . . depends on our members abiding by a strict 
code of conduct and adherence to our core values; honor respect, and devotion to 
duty.  These are unwaiverable. . . .  As an E-6 with the very important duties as 
your unit’s xxxxxxxxx, [the applicant’s] integrity must be above reproach.  This is 
why  special  requirements  exist  for  those  members  in  rates  which  must  be 
entrusted with property . . . .  In today’s austere budget and personnel climate, 
such  unethical  behavior  cannot  and  will  not  be  tolerated.    With  significant 
downsizing  efforts  planned  for  the  very  near  future,  the  [MPC]  must  carefully 
weigh  each  personnel  action  against  our  Service  needs,  ensuring  we  remain  in 
line  with  the  Commandant’s  direction.    Although  I  recognize  his  16  years  of 
service to the Coast Guard, to approve a waiver for [the applicant] would not be 
aligned with our organizational goals. 

 

On  xxxxxxxxxx,  199x,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  “for  the 
convenience of the government,” with a separation code of JND (separation for 
miscellaneous/general reasons) and a reenlistment code of RE-4 (not eligible for 
reenlistment).  
 

SUMMARY OF AFFIDAVITS 

The  lieutenant  who  served  as  the  Executive  Officer  on  the  CGC  Xxxx 

 
 
during the applicant’s entire tour submitted the following signed statements: 
 

. . .  During the entire time I have known [the applicant] I have witnessed him 
perform many exceptional things as a person and as a petty officer.  He always 
made his time available to help others aboard the cutter.  If someone needed his 

services as an xx they were taken care of immediately.  It was obvious that cus-
tomer satisfaction was the number one priority of [the applicant]. . . .  
 
As the senior enlisted person in my ship’s office he served as my office manager. 
. . .  And he not only earned this added responsibility, but did an exceptional job 
at it. 
 
[The applicant made a mistake, a big mistake.  And as a command we handled it. 
.  .  .  I  feel  [the  applicant]  learned  from  his  mistake  and  nothing  of  this  nature 
would ever take place again.  Anything that can be done to help out [the appli-
cant] would be a step in the right direction. . . . 

 

 
 
A  chief  electrician’s  mate,  who  was  the  applicant’s  Command  Enlisted 
Advisor  when  he  was  assigned  to  the  USCGC  xxxxxxxx,  signed  the  following 
statements on the applicant’s behalf: 
 

.  .  .    [The  applicant]  was  an  exceptional  xxxxxx.    When  ever  we  ran  into  a 
problem with supply he was always there for us. . . .  He always had a can do 
attitude that could turn a bad situation into a not so bad one. . . .  I know I was 
sure glad when he came aboard the xxxxxxxxxx. . . . 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

According to Article 12-B-1.a. of the Personnel Manual, the “Commandant 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
is the Discharge Authority in all cases of administrative separation . . . .” 
 
 
According to Article 12-B-1.d.(2), “When a record of nonjudicial punish-
ment imposed during a current enlistment . . . is considered, isolated incidents 
. . .  shall  have  minimal  influence  on  the  determination  [of  whether  a  member 
shall be separated].” 
 
 
According to Article 12-B-4.a., “In general, a member who meets the stan-
dards  for  reenlistment  set  forth  in  Article  1-G-5  should  be  eligible  for 
reenlistment, except where the reason for discharge precludes reenlistment, such 
as physical disqualification, disability, unsuitability, misconduct, . . . or when not 
recommended by the commanding officer.” 
 
 
According  to  Article  1-G-5,  to  be  eligible  for  reenlistment,  the  applicant 
had to meet certain minimum performance marks, be physically qualified, and 
be recommended for reenlistment by the officer effecting discharge. 
 
 
According to Article 4-A-14, “all cases of financial impropriety . . . by [per-
sonnel  serving  in  the  Logistics,  Procurement,  and  Financial  Management  pro-
grams] shall be handled as a breach of security.” 
 
 
According to Article 4-A-14.a., “[e]nlisted personnel who are required by 
Commandant to be removed from the XX or xx ratings, but not the Service, shall 
be offered a change in rating.” 
 
According to Article 4-A-14.d., “Logistics/Financial support personnel . . . 
 
who have a past history of financial improprieties . . . shall have an opportunity 
to be considered for a onetime waiver of this policy for past offenses or circum-
stances,  provided  that  the  individual’s  command  concurs  and  so  recommends 
. . . .” 
 
Eligibility of Personnel for Separation Pay (COMDTINST 1910.1) 
 
 
According to Articles 3.b. of COMDTINST 1910.1, “[t]his instruction pre-
cludes  separation  pay  to  any  member  separated  for  substandard  performance, 
unsuitability, or misconduct.” 
 

Article 4.a. states the following requirements for payment of full separa-

 
tion pay: 
 

Article 4.b. states the following requirements for payment of half separa-

 
 
tion pay: 
 

The member’s separation is characterized as “Honorable” . . . . 

The member . . . has completed at least 6 years, but less than 20 years, of 

Full payment of non-disability separation pay . . . is authorized to enlisted mem-
bers . . . involuntarily separated from active duty who meet each of the following 
four conditions:  
 
(1) 
active duty . . . . 
 
(2) 
 
(3) 
The  member  is  being  involuntarily  separated  because  of  not  being  rec-
ommended for retention or continuation on active duty under one of the follow-
ing specific conditions: 
 
 
mended for retention or continuation. 
 
 
untarily separated under a reduction in force . . . . 
 
(4) 
The member has entered into a written agreement to serve in the Coast 
Guard Ready Reserve for a period of not less than 3 years following separation 
from active duty. . . .  
 
 
A  member  who  enters  into  this  written  agreement  and  who  is 
not  qualified  for  enlistment  or  appointment  in  the  Ready  Reserve  need  not  be 
enlisted or appointed to be considered to have met this condition of eligibility for 
separation pay. 

The  member  is  fully  qualified  for  retention  but  is  not  recom-

The  member  is  fully  qualified  for  retention  and  is  being  invol-

(a) 

(b) 

(b) 

The member meets one of the criteria for active duty specified in para-

Half payment of non-disability separation pay . . . is authorized to members . . . 
involuntarily  separated  from  active  duty  who  meet  each  of  the  following  four 
conditions:  (In extraordinary instances, Commandant may award full separation 
pay to members otherwise eligible for half separation pay when the specific rea-
sons for separation and overall quality of the member’s service have been such 
that denial of such pay would clearly be unjust.) 
 
(1) 
graph 4.a.(1) above. 
 
(2) 
Under Honorable Conditions” . . . . 
 
(3) 
The  member  is  being  involuntarily  separated  because  of  not  being  rec-
ommended for retention or continuation on active duty under one of the follow-
ing specific conditions: 

The  member’s  separation  is  characterized  as  “Honorable,”  or  “General 

 
 
 
 

(a) 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

(b) 

The  member  is  being  separated  under  a  Coast  Guard  specific 

Expiration of enlistment. 
Homosexuality. 
Alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 
Security. 

 
 
The  member  is  not  fully  qualified  for  retention  and  is  not  rec-
ommended  for  reenlistment  or  continuation  under  any  of  the  following  condi-
tions: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
program established as half payment by the Commandant. 
 
 
continuation on active duty accepts an earlier separation. 
 
(4) 
Reserve . . . . 
 
 
Article 5.e.(5) states that, “if a member is authorized separation pay, it is 
noted on the Certificate of Release and Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 
214.” 
 

The member has entered into a written agreement to serve in the Ready 

The member, having been not recommended for reenlistment or 

(c) 

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 sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant alleged that he had been wrongly discharged during 
downsizing because of one mistake he had made as a xxxxxx.  He admitted that 
he had falsified two order forms in order to receive $xx worth of equipment that 
other  members  and  units  needed  for  their  work.    He  alleged  that  this  practice 
was normal and how xxxxxxs helped each other ensure that equipment needed 
for a mission was always available.  He submitted statements indicating that his 
command  had  wanted  to  retain  him  as  xxxxxx  despite  his  error  and  had 
considered his NJP to be sufficient punishment.   

The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  no  relief  be  granted  to  the 
applicant.  He alleged that the applicant had been properly discharged with all 
due process.  The Commander of the MPC explained that members discharged 
“for the convenience of the government” in 199x were not entitled to an ADB.  

 
3. 

 

4. 

In light of the letter from the Commander of the MPC dated Sep-
tember  22,  199x,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  because  of 
two facts:  his embezzlement, which constituted a security breach under Article 
4-A-14,  and  anticipation  of  a  general  reduction  in  force.    The  applicant’s  com-
mand actively sought and strongly urged his retention.  The Personnel Manual 
provides  at  least  two  less  harsh  alternatives  to  discharge  in  such  a  situation: 
waiver and a change of rating.  Therefore, the Board is persuaded that neither the 
embezzlement nor the anticipated downsizing alone would have resulted in the 
applicant’s discharge. 

Although  the  applicant’s  command  strongly  urged  his  retention 
and considered the NJP sufficient punishment, the Commandant acted within his 
discretion in discharging the applicant.  Discharging a member who has falsified 
documents, committed embezzlement, and tried to cover it up by lying cannot be 
considered  an  arbitrary  and  capricious  act  even  if  it  is  true  that  the  member’s 
actions  were  common  practice  among  xxxxxxs  and  in  some  way  helped  the 
supply system work.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Commandant committed error or injustice is choosing to dis-
charge him. 

The Commandant could have, but chose not to, discharge the appli-
cant  by  reason  of  “misconduct.”    Instead,  he  discharged  the  applicant  “for  the 
convenience of the government for good and sufficient reasons.”  In making this 
choice, the Commandant denied the applicant the right to an ADB, which was an 
entitlement for members with over 8 years of service who were being discharged 
for “misconduct.”  In 199x, members who were discharged “for the convenience 
of the government” did not have the right to an ADB.  Although a “misconduct” 
discharge  would  have  entitled  the  applicant  to  an  ADB,  the  Board  does  not 
believe that the Commandant committed an injustice in choosing the lesser dis-
charge.  An ADB would likely have concluded that the applicant’s embezzlement 
justified the Commandant’s decision.  

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

The applicant also alleged that he had been wrongly denied sepa-
ration pay.  The Commander of the MPC stated that the applicant was not eligi-
ble for separation pay because he did not enter into a written agreement to serve 
in the Ready Reserve.  He explained that the applicant was not allowed to enter 
such an agreement “due to the RE-4 that he received, due to the nature of his dis-
charge and the NJP that he was awarded because of embezzlement.” 

Article 3.b. of COMDTINST 1910.1 denies separation pay to those 
who are separated for “substandard performance, unsuitability, or misconduct.”  
The applicant was separated “for the convenience of the government due to good 
and sufficient reasons” and for “miscellaneous/general reasons.”  Therefore, the 

Board  finds  that  the  applicant  is  not  prevented  from  receiving  separation  pay 
under Article 3.b. 

Article 4.a. of COMDTINST 1910.1 permits full separation pay to be 
paid  to  those  who,  like  the  applicant,  have  at  least  six  years  of  service  and  an 
“honorable” discharge if they are involuntarily separated due to a reduction in 
force or not being recommended for reenlistment and if they sign an agreement 
to enter the Ready Reserve for 3 years.  Article 4.b.  permits at least half separa-
tion pay to be paid to those members who receive just a “general under honor-
able  conditions”  discharge  and  who  are  not  recommended  for  reenlistment 
because of homosexuality, alcohol abuse, and security concerns  if  they have at 
least  6  years  of  service  and  sign  a  written  agreement  to  serve  in  the  Ready 
Reserve. 

 
9. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

 
12. 

The  Commander  of  the  MPC  stated  in  a  letter  to  the  applicant’s 
command that he was being discharged because the embezzlement constituted a 
breach  of  security  and  because  of  an  anticipated  reduction  in  force.    He  also 
stated that the applicant had not been allowed to enter into a written agreement 
to join the Ready Reserve because of the RE-4, the nature of his discharge, and 
the  NJP.    The  Commander  did  not  explain  how  the  applicant’s  RE  code,  dis-
charge, or NJP could be distinguished with regard to his entitlement to separa-
tion  pay  from  those  of  homosexuals,  alcohol  abusers,  and  security  risks,  who 
under Article 4.b.(3), may receive half separation pay even though they must be 
assigned RE-4 reenlistment codes and often receive discharges much worse than 
the applicant’s “honorable” discharge “for the convenience of the government” 
and “for miscellaneous/general reasons.” 

The applicant was discharged in part because of a breach in secu-
rity.  He had served more than 16 years on active duty and received an “honor-
able” discharge “for the convenience of the government.”  Therefore, the Board 
finds  that,  except  for  the  fact  that  the  applicant  was  not  allowed  to  sign  an 
agreement to enter the Ready Reserve, the applicant would have qualified for at 
least half separation pay under Article 4.b. of COMDTINST 1910.1.  The reasons 
cited by the MPC for not allowing the applicant to sign an agreement to enter the 
Ready Reserve would preclude anyone who met the terms of Article 4.b.(3) para-
graphs 2., 3., and 4., from qualifying for half separation pay.  By the MPC’s rea-
soning,  such  members  would  never  be  allowed  to  meet  the  terms  of  Article 
4.b.(4) by signing an agreement to enter the Ready Reserve.  The Board finds that 
the MPC’s interpretation of this regulation in this case would defeat the purpose 
of Article 4.b. as a whole. 

Because  the  applicant  asked  to  be  returned  to  active  duty,  the 
Board is convinced that he would have signed an agreement to enter the Ready 

Reserve for 3 years at the time of his discharge had he been allowed to do so.  
The Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an injustice in not allowing him 
to do so and in thereby preventing him from receiving half separation pay.  Arti-
cle  4.b.(4)  does  not  require  a  member  actually  to  qualify  for  and  serve  in  the 
Ready Reserve; it merely requires that they sign an agreement to serve. 

The applicant’s record should be corrected to show that on the date 
of  his  discharge  he  signed  an  agreement  to  serve  in  the  Ready  Reserve  for  a 
period of 3 years.  In addition, his DD Form 214 and all other personnel records 
should be corrected to show that he qualified for half separation pay pursuant to 
Article 4.b. of COMDTINST 1910.1. 

 
13. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

 

 

The application for correction of the military record of former XXXXXXX, 

USCG, is hereby granted in part as follows: 
 
 
199x, he signed an agreement to serve in the Ready Reserve for 3 years. 
 

The  applicant’s  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  xxxxxxxxxx, 

No other relief shall be granted. 

 
 
David H. Kasminoff 

The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant the half separation pay he is due 

The applicant’s DD Form 214 and any other pertinent personnel records 
shall be corrected to show that he qualified for half separation pay under Article 
4.b. of COMDTINST 1910.1. 
 
 
pursuant to this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis 

 

 
L. L. Sutter