DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-057 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. 
XXX XX XXXX, XXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on February 28, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  31,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  order  the  Coast  Guard  to  pay him  severance 
pay for the time he served as a commissioned officer.  The applicant stated that a “JNC” 
(unacceptable  conduct)  separation  code  was  applied  to  his  discharge  form  (DD  Form 
214)  when  he  was  honorably  discharged,  involuntarily.    He  alleged  that  under  the 
Personnel  Manual,  the  JNC  separation  code  does  not  apply  to  an  officer  whose 
honorable discharge is involuntary and thus, he is entitled to severance pay.  He alleged 
that the Personnel Manual contains no “legal reason for [his] non-entitlement.”  
 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On  May  21,  19XX,  the  applicant  graduated  from  XXXX  XXXX  and  was 
commissioned  on  the  same  date  as  an  ensign  in  the  regular  component  of  the  Coast 
Guard.    On  November  21,  19XX,  he  was  promoted  to  lieutenant  junior  grade  (LTJG), 
grade O-2.  
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-057                                                               p. 2  

 
On  June  17,  19XX,  the  applicant  was  given  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  for 
engaging  in  two  romantic,  inappropriate  relationships  with  junior  enlisted  females; 
engaging  in  adultery  and  fraternization  with  the  two  females;  and  making  a  false 
official statement to investigators.  The foregoing constituted violations of Articles 92, 
107, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  As punishment for these 
violations,  he  received  a  punitive  letter  of  reprimand  and  forfeiture  of  $1,000.00  per 
month for two months.  
 
 
As a result of the NJP, on June 22, 19XX, the applicant’s supervisor prepared a 
special officer evaluation report (OER),  recommending that the applicant “be separated 
for cause [in accordance with] Article 12.A.15., or, if more appropriate, [by] revoking his 
commission under Article 12.A.11.”  Personnel Manual, Article 12.A.11.b.1.  In August 
19XX,  the  special  OER  was  approved  by  the  applicant’s  executive  officer  (XO),  who 
served  as  the  reporting  officer,  and  his  commanding  officer  (CO),  who  served  as  the 
reviewer.  In accordance with Article 12.A.11.b.2. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant 
was  granted  an  opportunity  to  review  the  special  OER  and  to  comment  by  letter 
endorsement.    On  December  1,  19XX,  he  commented  on  the  special  OER,  stating,  in 
pertinent  part,  that  “I  request  to  be  afforded  the  opportunity  to  finish  my  military 
obligation or if it is decided that I do not deserve a second chance that my commission 
be revoked under Article 12.A.11.” 
 

On  January  21,  19XX,  the  Commander  of  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC)  initiated  action  to  convene  a  board  to  recommend  whether  the  applicant’s 
commission  should  be  revoked.    Personnel Manual,  Article  12.A.11.b.1.    On  February 
29,  20XX,  a  Revocation  panel  convened  and  recommended  that  the  applicant’s 
commission  be  revoked.    Personnel  Manual,  Article  12.A.11.b.3.    The  Commandant 
approved  the  Panel’s  recommendation  on  March  17,  19XX,  and  the  applicant  was 
notified of the same by letter dated March 22, 19XX.  On March 23, 19XX, the applicant 
was  provided  detachment  orders,  wherein  it  was  stated  that  “[s]everance  pay  is  not 
authorized.” 
  Under  the  Separation  Designator  Program  (SPD)  Handbook,  the 
separation code of JNC, along with the separation authority of COMDTINST M1000.6A, 
Article 12.A.15. for commissioned officers, were applied to his discharge form DD 214. 

 
The applicant’s last day on active duty was May 17, 19XX, the effective date of 

his discharge.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 16, 2001, the Chief Counsel submitted the Coast Guard’s comments to 
the  Board.    He  adopted  the  analysis  and  conclusions  of  an  attached  memorandum 
prepared by CGPC, and recommended that the applicant’s request for relief be denied.  
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-057                                                               p. 3  

 
The Chief Counsel stated that, pursuant to 14 U.S.C. § 281, during the first three 
years  of  commissioned  service,  regular  Coast  Guard  officers  are  considered  to  be  in 
probationary  status.    He  argued  that  the  applicant  is  not  entitled  to  severance  pay 
because at the time of his separation for unacceptable conduct, the applicant had fewer 
than three years of commissioned service and was considered to be in a probationary 
status.   He asserted that 10 U.S.C. § 630, the Department of Defense (DOD) companion 
statute  for  14  U.S.C.  §  281,  specifically  excludes  compensation  for  officers  whose 
commissions are revoked while in probationary status.  The Chief Counsel argued that 
the absence of authority for severance pay under 14 U.S.C. § 281 means that no legal 
authority exists to pay probationary status officers whose commissions are revoked. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that, conversely, officers separated under the “show 
cause” process pursuant to 14 U.S.C. §§ 321, 322, and 323 are entitled to severance pay.  
He contended that the “show cause” process, however, is reserved for officers who are 
beyond probation, having more than three years of commissioned service.  He argued 
that officers with fewer than three years of commissioned service are not entitled to be 
processed under the show cause provisions.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD) 
Handbook establishes the DOD separation codes that must be included in block 26 on a 
member’s discharge form DD 214.  He argued that the SPD code assigned to an officer 
upon separation has no bearing on entitlement to severance pay.  He contended that the 
SPD code assigned to a member best describes the reason for separation.  He stated that 
the JNC code, which indicates that an officer was separated for unacceptable conduct, 
was appropriately applied to the applicant’s discharge certificate. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 19, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  September  3,  2002,  he 
responded to the Board.  

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  generally  objected  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory 
opinion.    He  asserted  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  required  to  strictly  adhere  to  the 
Personnel  Manual,  as  it  is  written.  He  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  should  not 
arbitrarily assign SPD codes on a case-by-case basis.  He argued that an officer whose 
commission is revoked must be discharged under certain SPD codes, and the code of 
JNC fails to be an appropriate code under the Personnel Manual.  As such, the applicant 
contended  that  his  “commission  was  not  revoked  under  any  legal  pretense.”    The 
applicant further contended that the length of his commission was not germane to the 
issues of his case.   

 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-057                                                               p. 4  

The applicant argued that there are no provisions in the Personnel Manual that 
preclude  him  from  receiving  severance  pay.    He  asserted  that  the  SPD  code  he  was 
discharged  under  was  not  applicable  to  officers  who  are  honorably  and  involuntarily 
discharged.    He  urged  the  Board  to  find  that  the  Coast  Guard  must  support  his 
transition into the private sector.  

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
The SPD Handbook states that the JNC separation code is to be assigned when 
the member’s "[i]nvoluntary discharge [is] directed by established directive (no board 
entitlement)  when  [the]  member  performs  acts  of  unacceptable  conduct  (i.e.,  moral 
and/or  professional  dereliction)  not  otherwise  listed.”    The  JNC  separation  code  is 
applied  to  commissioned  officers  under  the  authority  of  Article  12.A.15.  of  the 
Personnel Manual.  Moreover, the handbook requires an RE-4 reenlistment code to be 
assigned when the JNC separation code is used.  
 
 
 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  12.A.11.a.1.,  titled  “Revoking  Regular  Officers’  Commissions  in  Their 
First Three Years of Service”, ”General,” provides that “[t]he Service considers [the] first 
three  years  of  an  officer’s  career  a  probationary  period  during  which  he  or  she 
demonstrates  ability  to  adapt  to  the  requirements  of  Coast  Guard  life  and  show 
capability for future development. …”  Under Article 12.A.11.b.1., an officer’s CO may 
recommend  to  CGPC  that  an  officer  within  three  years  of  commissioning  have  his 
commission  revoked.    Article  12.A.11.b.2.  provides  that  the  officer  must  have  an 
opportunity to submit a statement to a panel of senior officers, who review the record 
and  make  recommendation  about  revocation.    Article  12.A.11.b.4  provides  that  the 
Commandant may approve or disapprove a recommendation for revocation, pursuant 
to 14 U.S.C. § 281.  Article  12.A.11.c., titled “Separation,” states that “[o]fficers whose 
commissions are revoked under this Article shall be honorably discharged ….” 
 
Article  12.A.15.  provides  alternate  authority,  under  14  U.S.C.  §§  321-327,  for 
 
revoking  an  officer’s  commission  “for  cause.”    Different  procedures  are  followed  and 
officers are entitled to a hearing.  Article 12.A.15.c.4. states that “[o]fficers with less than 
three  years  of  commissioned  will  normally  be  processed  under  Article  12.A.9. 
[Discharging Active Duty Reserve Officers] or 12.A.11. depending upon their status.” 
 
 
Article 12.A.19.c., titled “Separated for Cause,” provides that “[a] regular Coast 
Guard  officer  separated  for  cause  under  article  12.A.15.c.1.  and  not  eligible  for 
retirement  is  entitled  to  severance  pay.  …”  pursuant  to  the  authority  contained  in  14 
U.S.C. §§ 321-327. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-057                                                               p. 5  

 
Coast Guard Pay Manual (COMDTINST 7220.29) 
 
Article  10  of  the  Pay  Manual  governs  members’  entitlement  to  severance  pay.  
 
Article 10.F.1.a. states that “[a] regular commissioned officer who is discharged from the 
Coast Guard may be paid [severance pay] under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 286 or [14 
U.S.C.]  327  ….”    (Title  14  U.S.C.  §  286  authorizes  severance  pay  for  officers  who  are 
discharged or retired because they have twice failed to be selected for promotion.) 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
Pursuant  to  14  U.S.C.  §  281,  Article  12.A.11.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
provides for separation by revoking the commissions of Coast Guard officers, who like 
the applicant have less than three years of commissioned service.  On May 17, 19XX, the 
applicant’s  commission  was  revoked  while  he  was  in  the  three-year  probationary 
status.  The applicant could not have been confused about the basis of his discharge.  In 
response  to  the  special  OER  recommending  the  revocation  of  his  commission,  the 
applicant was given the opportunity to submit a statement with his comments.  In that 
statement,  he  requested  that  “[his]  commission  be  revoked  under  Article  12.A.11.,” 
should  it  be  decided  that  he  be  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  notification  of 
proposed  action  informed  the  applicant  that  action  had  been  initiated  under  Article 
12.A.11.  to  revoke  his  commission  for  unacceptable  conduct  and  extended  an 
opportunity  for  him  to  submit  comments  to  the  panel.    By  letter  dated  February  11, 
19XX, the applicant submitted his comments for panel consideration.  Subsequently, he 
was notified that a Coast Guard panel recommended the revocation of his commission 
under  Article  12.A.11.,  which  was  approved  by  the  Commandant,  and  that  he  was 
being discharged in accordance with 14 U.S.C. § 281.  The applicant has not proved that 
he was denied any due process by the Coast Guard.  Accordingly, the Board finds that 
the  applicant’s  commission  was  properly  revoked  under  Article  12.A.11.  of  the 
Personnel Manual and 14 U.S.C. § 281.  
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-057                                                               p. 6  

4. 

5. 

7. 

6. 

 
Neither  Article  12.A.11.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  nor  14  U.S.C.  §  281 
authorizes  severance  pay  for  officers  whose  commissions  are  revoked.    While  Article 
12.A.19.c.  authorizes  severance  pay  for  officers  discharged  “for  cause”  under 
12.A.15.c.1.  and  14  U.S.C.  §§  321-327,  the  applicant  does  not  fall  into  this  category 
because  he  was  not  discharged  pursuant  to  those  authorities.    Moreover,  Article 
12.A.15.c.4.  specifically  excludes  officers  like  the  applicant  by  indicating  that  they 
should normally be discharged under Article 12.A.11. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
Article  10.F.1.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Pay  Manual  provides  that  regular 
commissioned  officers  who  are  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  may  be  paid 
severance pay under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. § 286 or 14 U.S.C. § 327.  However, the 
applicant  was  discharged  under  the  authority  of  14  U.S.C.  §  281.    Therefore,  no 
statutory authority exists to provide the applicant for his requested relief.   The Board 
finds that the applicant has presented no law or regulation in support of his allegations, 
and  has  failed  to  show  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to 
severance  pay.    See  Dock  v.  United  States, 46  F.3d  1083,  1086  (Fed.  Cir.  1995)  (stating 
that  the  “rights  and  benefits  of  a  member  of  the  military  services,  including  pay  and 
allowances, are defined by statute”). 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the JNC SPD code is inappropriate because it is 
not  applicable  to  commissioned  officers  whose  commissions  are  revoked.    The  Coast 
Guard uses the DOD’s SPD codes, which are not tailored to Coast Guard regulations.  
The JNC code, denoting an involuntary discharge due to unacceptable conduct, is the 
code in the SPD Handbook that most accurately reflects the reason for the applicant’s 
separation.  According to the SPD Handbook, commissioned officers may be assigned a 
JNC  SPD  code  under  authority  found  in  Article  12.A.15.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
There is no  SPD code for officers, like the applicant, whose commissions are revoked 
under  Article  12.A.11.    Moreover,  as  stated  above,  Article  12.A.15  refers  to  Article 
12.A.11, as authorizing separation for commissioned officers with less than three years 
of  commissioned  service.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to 
prove  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  error  or  injustice  by  assigning  him  a  JNC 
separation code, and Article 12.A.15. as the authority for his discharge on his DD 214.  
The  DD  Form  214  does  not  determine  entitlement  to  severance  pay,  but  rather 
“provides  the  member  with  a  concise  record  of  a  period  of  service  with  the  Armed 
Forces at the time of the member’s separation, discharge or change in military status.”  
Section 4.a. of COMDTINT M1900.4D (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty DD Form 214.). 
  
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-057                                                               p. 7  

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX,  XXX  XX  XXXX,  USCG,  for  the 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Angel Collaku 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas A. Phemister 

 

 

 

 
 Mark A. Tomicich