DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-064 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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.  It was docketed on Febru-
ary  2,  2004,  upon  the  BCMR’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 28, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant,  who  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  August  6,  1999, 

 
 
asked the Board to correct his discharge form, DD Form 214, by  
 

(1) correcting the “effective date of pay grade” shown on his DD 214; 
(2) correcting the pay grade shown on his DD 214 from E-3 to E-4; 
(3) correcting his separation code from JPD, which, according to the Separation 
Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  denotes  an  involuntary  discharge 
“when a member failed through inability or refusal to participate in, cooper-
ate  in,  or  successfully  complete  a  treatment  program  for  alcohol  rehabilita-
tion”; and 

(4) upgrading his reentry code from RE-4 to RE-3 or RE-1 so that he can join the 

Reserve. 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  “effective  date  of  pay  grade”  shown  on  his  DD 
214—November 3, 1995—is the date he advanced to E-4, not the date he was reduced to 

E-3 as the result of non-judicial punishment (NJP) at a captain’s mast.  He asked that 
this discrepancy be corrected. 

 
With respect to his pay grade upon discharge, the applicant stated that he was a 
machinery technician  third class (MK3; pay  grade E-4) for more than three years and 
was on the advancement list for promotion to E-5 when he was taken to mast and pun-
ished with a reduction in grade.  With respect to the JPD separation code, the applicant 
alleged that it was unjust because he completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment prior to 
his discharge.  He alleged that since his discharge he has “been rehabilitated, realized 
that  [he]  had  a  problem,  and  …  solved  it.”    He  argued  that  the  corrections  he  is 
requesting would benefit both himself and the Coast Guard. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On September 27, 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  He completed 
boot  camp,  served  on  a  cutter  for  more  than  one  year,  and  then  attended  MK  “A” 
School to join the machinery technician rating.  Upon graduating from MK “A” School 
on November 3, 1995, he advanced from fireman (FN/E-3) to MK3/E-4.  He was again 
assigned to a cutter, the Xxxx, where he subsequently qualified as a machinery watch-
stander, an advanced damage controlman, and an advanced firefighter. 
 
 
On January 27, 1998, the applicant’s command completed a special performance 
evaluation  for  him.    The  Executive  Officer  (XO)  of  the  Xxxx  entered  a  form  CG-3307 
(“page 7”) in his record “to document an unsatisfactory conduct mark due to an alcohol 
incident.”  The XO assigned the applicant a low mark of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 
being  best)  in  the  category  “Health  and  Well  Being”  and  documented  the  mark  on 
another  page  7.    The  XO  also  prepared  a  page  7  to  document  the  termination  of  the 
applicant’s  eligibility  period  for  a  Good  Conduct  Award.    The  applicant  signed  these 
entries in acknowledgment. 
 
 
signed, to counsel the applicant about the alcohol incident: 
 

On  March  3,  1998,  the  XO  prepared  another  page  7,  which  the  applicant  also 

On 03MAR98 you were referred to the XXXX Command Drug and Alcohol Representa-
tive (CDAR) for evaluation.  On 27JAN98 you failed to get up for divisional muster at the 
assigned time.  When the  division LPO and CPO tried to wake you there was  a strong 
smell of alcohol coming from the area of your rack.  It took 4 hours for you to get out of 
the rack.  During an investigation you admitted to drinking alcohol the previous evening 
and  that  it  was  a  contributing  factor  in  preventing  you  from  executing  your  assigned 
duties. 
 
You  have  been  counseled  on  policies  concerning  alcohol  use/abuse  and  the  serious 
nature of this incident.  A date will be set for you to be screened at a local CAAC facility.  
No other action is pending. 
 

This is considered your first alcohol incident for documentation purposes.  Per Chapter 
20 of the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series), any further alcohol incidents 
may result in your separation from the Coast Guard. 

On March 19, 1998, the XO entered another page 7 in the applicant’s record to 

 
 
document the following: 
 

On 17MAR98 you missed quarters and almost missed sailing of XXXX from xxxxxxxxxx.  
If  other  crew  members  had  not  gone  to  your  hotel  room  when  it  was  recognized  you 
were missing you would most likely have missed sailing.  On the same day you failed to 
lay to your assigned billet during flight quarters and had to be piped.  You were found in 
your rack by your supervisor.  On 18MAR98, you missed the morning divisional muster 
and again were found in your rack by your supervisor. 
 
You  have  initiated  a  steady  downward  trend  in  your  performance  over  the  past  two 
months. … Your supervisors are frustrated with your performance and have given you 
every  opportunity  to  improve  …  .    Presently  you  are  considered  to  be  the  lowest  per-
former in the Auxiliary Division.  Instead of setting an example as a petty officer, at this 
point the junior non-rated personnel have work habits, positive attitudes and motivation 
you could learn from. 
 
With less than six months remaining on your tour [on the cutter] you have an opportu-
nity to finish your tour on a strong note, or you can continue the trend you have started.  
Continued poor performance … will not be tolerated … [and] will result in increasingly 
more severe action by the command. 
 
In addition to being late it was found that you shared a hotel room with crewmembers of 
the opposite sex.  Per XXXX Instruction 1611.1B, cohabitating with a crewmember of the 
opposite gender is unacceptable. 

After completing his tour on the cutter, the applicant was transferred to an Inte-

 
 
grated Support Command (ISC). 
 
 
On February 10, 1999, a woman who had been a subordinate of the applicant’s 
on the Xxxx reported that he was the father of her child.1  On February 24, 1999, after an 
investigation, the applicant was charged with having committed adultery with her and 
with four other crewmates aboard the cutter in 1997 and 1998.  All but the first of these 
adultery charges were dismissed.  A notation in the record indicates that they were dis-
missed  because  they  were  more  than  two years  old.    The  applicant  was  also  charged 
with making a false official statement to an investigator and with committing indecent 
acts with a subordinate female by engaging in sexual intercourse with her on March 17, 
1998, in the public bathroom of a dance club and in a hotel room in the presence of two 
other persons.  
 

                                                 
1  This fact appears in a letter from the CO of the ISC to CGPC dated June 9, 1999 (discussed below). 

 
On  April  28,  1999,  the  applicant’s  CO  withdrew  his  recommendation  for 
advancement  due  to  the  pending  charges.    He  prepared  a  page  7  to  document  this 
action, and the applicant signed it. 
 
 
The applicant was informed of his rights, conferred with counsel, and accepted 
NJP  for  the  charges  against  him.    At  mast  on  May  17,  1999,  his  CO  ordered  the 
following  punishments:  restriction  to  base  for  45  days;  extra  duties  for  45  days;  and 
reduction  in  grade  to  E-3  (because  the  applicant  retained  his  designator,  his  rating 
became FNMK).  
 
 
stating the following: 
 

On May 26, 1999, the applicant’s CO prepared a page 7 for the applicant’s record 

On  17  May  1999,  during  Captain’s  Mast,  you  were  found  in  violation  of  two  counts 
(Adultery and Indecent Act) of Article 134, UCMJ.  Circumstances relating to these viola-
tions identify that alcohol abuse was a significant causative factor.  You committed these 
offenses on 17 Mar 1998 while attached to CGC Xxxx on liberty in xxxxxxx.  You stated 
that you were “drunk” and “passed out” on the night these violations occurred, which 
clearly meets the established criteria for an alcohol incident. 
 
You were counseled on the policies concerning alcohol use/abuse and the serious nature 
of  this  incident.    You  have  been  scheduled  for  22  Jun  1999  screening  appointment  at 
CAAC … .  Based on the result of forthcoming screening, an alcohol education/treatment 
may be scheduled as necessary. 
 
This is your second documented alcohol incident.  As per [Article 20.B. of the Personnel 
Manual], I am required to process you for separation, in accordance with Article 12.B.16 
of the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6A (series). 

 
Also on May 26, 1999, the CO informed the applicant that he was recommending 
 
to the Personnel Command that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability, in accor-
dance with Article 12.B.16.b.5. of the Personnel Manual, because of his second alcohol 
incident.  The CO informed the applicant that he had a right to submit a statement in 
his own behalf that would be forwarded with the CO’s recommendation. 
 
 
On May 28, 1999, the applicant received a performance evaluation in which he 
received  marks  of  2  for  Responsibility  and  Integrity  and  an  unsatisfactory  conduct 
mark.  In addition, he was not recommended for advancement and his eligibility period 
for  a  Good  Conduct  Award  was  terminated.    The  CO  prepared page  7s  to  document 
these marks, and the applicant signed them. 
 
 
On June 4, 1999, the applicant submitted his statement objecting to his discharge.  
He listed his duties and stated that his name was on an advancement list for promotion 
to  MK2.    He  stated  that  he  “continue[d]  to  strive  forward  despite  the  administrative 
actions awarded me” and that he was in counseling and would be screened for alcohol 
dependence.  He also noted that his marks supported an honorable discharge. 

 
 
On June 9, 1999, the CO sent to Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC) his recommendation that the applicant be honorably discharged for unsuitabil-
ity because of the two alcohol incidents.  The CO forwarded with his recommendation 
the applicant’s statement and supporting documentation. 
 
 
On  June  24,  1999,  the  Personnel  Command  ordered  the  applicant’s  CO  to  dis-
charge him no later than July 22, 1999, by reason of unsuitability under Article 12.B.16 
of the Personnel Manual with a JPD separation code.  The separation orders state that 
block 28 of the applicant’s DD 214 “shall only indicate the appropriate narrative reason 
for  disch[arge]  found  in  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook.”2    On 
July 8, 1999, the applicant’s command requested authority to delay the discharge until 
August 6, 1999, so that the applicant could complete rehabilitation treatment.  On July 
13, 1999, CGPC approved the delay. 
 
 
On August 2, 1999, the CO of a Naval Medical Clinic wrote a letter to the appli-
cant’s CO to document the fact that between July 6 and August 2, 1999, the applicant 
attended and successfully completed treatment for alcohol dependence.  The treatment 
included 36 hours of group counseling sessions; 3 individual counseling sessions; and 
“3 reviews of the patient’s progress before a Multiple Disciplinary Team meeting.” 
 

On  August  6,  1999,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard  as  an  FNMK/E-3  with  a  JPD  separation  code,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and 
“Unsuitability”  as  his  narrative  reason  for  separation.3    The  DD  214  also  shows 
“Routine”  as  the  type  of  separation  and  “R  241704Z  JUN  99”  as  the  separation 
authority. 
 

   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 5, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant limited relief 
by correcting the date of rank shown on his DD 214.  TJAG also noted that the type of 
separation and separation authority shown on the DD 214 are erroneous and should be 
corrected.  However, TJAG argued that no relief is warranted with respect to the appli-
cant’s other requests. 
 
                                                 
2 Under the SPD Handbook, the proper narrative reason for separation for a member discharged with an 
SPD separation code is “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.” 
3  The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook  provides  that  the  proper  narrative  reason  for 
separation  to  be  shown  on  the  DD  214  of  a  member  assigned  the  JPD  code  is  “Alcohol  Rehabilitation 
Failure.”  However, whoever prepared the applicant’s DD 214 typed in “Unsuitability” instead.  Since the 
applicant has not asked for his narrative reason for separation to be corrected, the Board will not address 
it—especially since the correction would not necessarily be considered an improvement of his record. 

 
TJAG argued that the JPD and RE-4 codes are correct because the applicant was 
involved  in  two  alcohol  incidents.    TJAG  pointed  out  that  after  the  first  incident,  on 
March 3, 1998, the applicant was counseled about the incident, referred for screening, 
and  advised  that  a  second  such  incident  would  likely  result  in  his  separation.    TJAG 
pointed out that the applicant’s second alcohol incident occurred less than two weeks 
later.  TJAG argued that the applicant’s “failure to curb his intemperate use of alcohol, 
with full knowledge of the likely consequences of his actions, correctly resulted in his 
separation from the Coast Guard.”  TJAG further argued that  
 

[t]here are a limited number of separation codes available to the Coast Guard.  The JPD 
code  is  the  code  used  to  separate  members  in  Applicant’s  position  who  have  had  a 
second  alcohol  incident.    It  is  unfortunate  that  Applicant’s  second  incident  occurred 
before  he  received  the  substantial  treatment  at  a  professional  facility  he  was  later 
afforded,  but  his  failure  to  curb  his  drinking  after  screening  and  counseling  by  the 
Command  Drug  and  Alcohol  Representative  [on  March  3,  1998]  was  sufficient  non-
compliance  for  purposes  of  discharge.    The  RE-4  reenlistment  code  is  the  only  code 
authorized for members separated for their second alcohol incident. 

 
 
TJAG  alleged  that  “the  BCMR’s  scope  of  review  of  non-judicial  punishment 
(NJP)  cases  is  limited”  and  argued  that  the  BCMR  should  defer  to  the  CO’s  decision 
pursuant to Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 
842-4 (1984).  TJAG argued that “[w]hen assessing the appropriateness of a punishment, 
the Board must be particularly deferential to the broad discretion of military authorities, 
which are best able to assess appropriate punishments in light of unit missions and the 
concomitant needs of good order and discipline at their units.” 
 

TJAG alleged that the applicant “has failed to assert or prove any factual or legal 
error”  and  has  not  overcome  the  “strong  presumption  that  military  officials  involved 
performed their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  Arens v. United States, 969 
F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  TJAG 
argued that the applicant did not appeal his NJP and that the Board should therefore 
deem  the  matter  of  his  reduction  in  grade  waived  “absent  compelling  circumstances 
that  prevented  the  Applicant  from  raising  such  issues  within  the  military  justice  sys-
tem.” 
 
 
Finally,  TJAG  argued  that  the  applicant  “has  failed  to  present  any  substantial 
reason for granting clemency.”  He argued that the “Board’s clemency power should be 
reserved  for  those  unusual  cases  where  unanticipated  circumstances  cause  the  lawful 
punishment  of  a  commanding  officer  to  have  an  effect  that  shocks  the  conscience  or 
conflicts with notions of fundamental fairness.”  Moreover, TJAG argued that the appli-
cant’s “conduct was more than sufficiently egregious for his commanding officer to con-
clude  that  it  was  inappropriate  for  him  to  continue  to  serve  as  a  Third  Class  Petty 
Officer.” 
 

 
TJAG  included  with  his  advisory  opinion  and  adopted  a  memorandum  on  the 
case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that the 
applicant’s discharge form, DD 214, shows his correct pay grade upon discharge (E-3) 
since he had been reduced in rank, but not the correct date of rank.  CGPC stated that 
the date of rank shown on the DD 214 should be the date the applicant was reduced in 
rank to E-3 (May 17, 1999), not the date he advanced to E-4 (November 3, 1995).  CGPC 
further stated that in accordance with regulations, the type of separation on the DD 214 
should be “Discharged,” not “Routine,” and the separation authority should be “Article 
12-B-16, CG PERSMAN,” not “R 241704Z JUN 99.” 
 
 
CGPC noted that “the record is incomplete with regard to the required documen-
tation that the Applicant was screened and received any appropriate treatment after his 
first  alcohol  incident,”  as  required  under  Article  20.B.2.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
However,  CGPC  pointed  out  that  the  applicant  made  “no  allegation  that  he  was  not 
properly screened and treated” after his first incident, so presumably it took place. 
 
 
Regarding  the  SPD  code,  CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  screened  and 
treated after his first incident and “the fact that [he] suffer[ed] a second alcohol incident 
is evidence that [he] failed treatment, regardless of successful treatment after a second 
incident.”  CGPC noted that there is no SPD code that means “second alcohol incident.” 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 6, 2004, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s advi-

 
 
sory opinion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PRIOR CASES 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  20  of  the  Personnel  Manual  contains  the  regulations  regarding  alcohol 
abuse  by  Coast  Guard  members.    Article  20.B.2.d.  defines  an  “alcohol  incident”  as 
“[a]ny behavior in which the use or abuse of alcohol is determined to be a significant or 
causative factor and which results in the member’s loss of ability to perform assigned 
duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or federal, state, or local laws.”  According to Article 
20.B.2.e.,  “[a]ny  member  who  has  been  involved  in  alcohol  incidents  or  otherwise 
shown signs of alcohol abuse shall be screened in accordance with the Alcohol Abuse 
Treatment and Prevention Program . . . .  The results of this alcohol screening shall be 
recorded and acknowledged on a [page 7].”  The page 7 must also include a “statement 
of recommended treatment, if any.” 
 
 
Article 20.A.2.e. states that “alcohol screening” is an “evaluation by a physician, 
clinical psychologist, or a DoD or civilian equivalent CAAC counselor to determine the 
nature and extent of alcohol abuse.”  The evaluation and recommendation for treatment 
are based on the answers provided by the member in an interview. 
 
 
According  to  Article  20.B.2.h.2.,  “[e]nlisted  members  involved  in  a  second 
alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation  in  accordance  with  Article 
12.B.16.”   
 
 
According  to  Article  20.B.3.b.,  “[c]ommanding  officers  shall  seek  appropriate 
treatment for members who have abused alcohol or been diagnosed as alcohol depend-
ent.  .  .  .  Members  shall  be  treated  for  alcohol  abuse  or  dependency  as  prescribed  by 
competent medical authority.  However, if they are otherwise qualified, their scheduled 
separation or release to inactive duty for any reason shall not be  delayed for the sole 
purpose of completing alcohol treatment.” 
 
 
Article  12.B.16.  authorizes  the  administrative  discharge  of  members  for  alcohol 
abuse  pursuant  to  Article  20.B.2.    It  also  authorizes  the  administrative  discharge  of 
members for “not adhering to core values.” 
 
COMDTINST M1900.4D 
 
 
Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D provides the instructions for completing 
DD 214s.  The instructions provide that blocks 4a and 4b on a DD 214 are to contain the 
rate  and  pay  grade  “in  which  separated.”    Block  23  is  for  the  type  of  separation  and 
should  contain  one  of  the  following:    “Discharged,”  “Released  from  Active  Duty,” 
“Retired,”  “Resigned,”  or  “Commission  Revoked.”    Block  25  is  for  the  separation 

authority  and  should  contain  “the  appropriate  separation  authority  associated  with  a 
particular authority and reason for separation as shown in the SPD Handbook, unless 
otherwise directed by [the Military Personnel Command].”  Block 26 is for the separa-
tion code, and the instruction states that it should contain “the appropriate separation 
code (SPD) associated with a particular authority and reason for separation as shown in 
the SPD Handbook or as stated by the [Military Personnel Command] in the message 
granting  discharge  authority.”    Block  27,  which  is  for  the  reenlistment  code,  should 
show  “only  the  proper  reenlistment  code  associated  with  a  particular  SPD  Code  as 
shown in the SPD Handbook.”  Block 28, which is for the narrative reason for separa-
tion, should show the reason specified by the Military Personnel Command “by perti-
nent letter or orders issued.” 
 
SPD Handbook 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator Handbook permits the use of the following 
codes, narrative reasons, and reenlistment codes, which might apply to the applicant’s 
case: 
 

Narrative Reason  RE Code  Authority  Explanation 

SPD 
Code 
JPD 

Alcohol 
Rehabilitation 
Failure 

RE-4 

12-B-16 

Involuntary discharge … when a 
member failed through inability or 
refusal to participate in, cooperate 
in, or successfully complete a 
treatment program for alcohol 
rehabilitation. 
Involuntary discharge … when 
member performs acts of 
unacceptable conduct (i.e., moral 
and/or professional dereliction) not 
otherwise listed. 

JNC 

Unacceptable 
Conduct 

RE-4 

12-B-16 

 
 
BCMR Docket No. 1998-047 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1998-047, the applicant was discharged by reason of alcohol 
 
rehabilitation failure following two alcohol incidents.  After the first, an arrest for driv-
ing  under  the  influence  in  July  1996,  his  screening  was  delayed  due  to  his  cutter’s 
underway schedule until November 1996.  In November, he was finally screened and in 
December,  his  command  formally  documented  his  first  alcohol  incident  and  ordered 
him to undergo Level I rehabilitative treatment.  However, before he began treatment, 
on January 1, 1997, he was arrested for assault committed while under the influence of 
alcohol.    Therefore,  his  command  recommended  his  discharge  and  referred  him  to 
Level  II  treatment.    He  was  discharged  on  April  16,  1997,  before  completing  the 

treatment program, with a JPD separation code and “alcohol rehabilitation failure” as 
his narrative reason for separation. 
 
In his advisory opinion for Docket No. 1998-047, the Chief Counsel of the Coast 
 
Guard recommended that the Board change the applicant’s separation code to JNC and 
his  narrative  reason  for  separation  to  “unacceptable  conduct.”    The  Board  found  that 
the  narrative  reason  for  separation  “alcohol  rehabilitation  failure”  was  inaccurate 
because the applicant’s screening and treatment were delayed by the Coast Guard and 
his treatment was not completed by the time he was discharged.  Therefore, the Board 
granted  the  relief  recommended  by  the  Chief  Counsel  and  did  not  change  the  appli-
cant’s reenlistment code, which was RE-4. 
 
BCMR Docket No. 1999-086 
 

In BCMR Docket No. 1999-086, the applicant was discharged by reason of alcohol 
rehabilitation failure following two alcohol incidents.   After her first alcohol incident, 
she  was  promptly  screened  and  ordered  to  begin  alcohol  rehabilitative  treatment.  
However,  she  subsequently  realized  the  low-level  treatment  was  not  working  and 
sought a higher level of treatment.  Before receiving that treatment, she had a second 
alcohol incident.  She  successfully completed the higher level of alcohol rehabilitative 
treatment, but was then discharged due to her second documented alcohol incident. 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  because,  although 
the  code  and  narrative  reason  shown  on  her  DD  214  did  not  perfectly  describe  her 
situation, they were the closest available terms in the SPD Handbook.  The Board found 
that  that  applicant  was  properly  discharged  following  her  second  alcohol  incident 
under  Article  20.B.2.h.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  because  the  rehabilitative  treatment 
she received after her first alcohol incident failed.  The Board found that, “[w]hile it is 
admirable  that  she  voluntarily  sought  and  successfully  completed  a  higher  level  of 
treatment after her second alcohol incident, this does not negate the fact that the appli-
cant initially failed to  be rehabilitated and that she was discharged as a result of that 
initial failure.”  The Board held that her case was distinguishable from that of the appli-
cant in BCMR Docket No. 1998-047, whose treatment was delayed for many months by 
the Coast Guard and did not even begin until after his second alcohol incident.  In con-
trast, the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 1999-086 was properly and timely referred for 
rehabilitative treatment. 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

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

1. 
§ 1552.   
 
2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The applicant was 
discharged and received his DD 214 on August 6, 1999.  Therefore, his application was 
untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year stat-
ute of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in 
the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should conduct a cur-
sory review of the merits of the case and consider the reasons for the delay.4  A cursory 
review of the merits of this case indicates that the Coast Guard has admitted that the 
applicant’s DD 214 contains errors and has recommended that the Board grant partial 
relief. Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of 
limitations in this case. 

 
4. 

The applicant alleged that the “effective date of pay grade” shown on his 
DD 214 is incorrect in that it shows the date he was advanced to E-4 (November 3, 1995) 
rather than the date he was reduced to E-3 (May 17, 1999).  He asked the Board to cor-
rect the discrepancy.  The Coast Guard admitted and the record shows that the appli-
cant was reduced to pay grade E-3 on May 17, 1999.  The Board finds that the applicant 
is entitled to have the discrepancy between his pay grade and his date of rank corrected. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  the  pay  grade  shown  on  his 
DD 214 from E-3 to E-4.5  The record indicates that the applicant was reduced to pay 
grade E-3 as a result of NJP on May 17, 1999, after he was charged with several viola-
tions of the UCMJ.  He was not re-advanced to E-4 prior to his discharge.  Moreover, the 
applicant has submitted no evidence to show that the charges against him were false, 
and the record indicates that he received due process with respect to the NJP.  There-
fore, the Board finds that the pay grade shown on his DD 214 is not erroneous.  More-
over, the Board finds that the reduction in pay grade as punishment for his misconduct 

                                                 
4 Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
5  TJAG argued that “the BCMR’s scope of review of non-judicial punishment (NJP) cases is limited” and 
that  the  BCMR  should  defer  to  the  CO’s  decision  pursuant  to  Chevron  U.S.A.  Inc.,  v.  Natural  Resources 
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-4 (1984).  However, under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, Congress limited the 
Board’s authority only with respect to court-martial convictions, not with respect to NJP.  In addition, the 
case cited by TJAG is inapplicable as it concerns the level of deference a court should show the decision of 
a federal agency, whereas the Board serves on behalf of the Secretary, who is not required to defer to the 
Coast Guard by the decision in Chevron.  Instead, under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b), the Secretary has directed the 
Board to accord  Coast Guard records a presumption of regularity that the applicant must overcome to 
prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. 

was  not  unduly  harsh  and  does  not  constitute  treatment  by  military  authorities  that 
“shocks the sense of justice.”6 

 
6. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  separation  code,  which  is 
JPD.  He did not specify which separation code he wants in lieu of JPD.  According to 
the SPD Handbook, the JPD code is to be used “when a member failed through inability 
or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete a treatment program 
for alcohol rehabilitation.”  The applicant alleged that he successfully completed alcohol 
rehabilitation  treatment  on  August  2,  1999,  four  days  before  his  discharge.    CGPC 
argued  that  whether  the  applicant  completed  rehabilitation  after  his  second  alcohol 
incident is irrelevant because the applicant was screened and treated after his first inci-
dent  and  “the  fact  that  [he]  suffer[ed]  a  second  alcohol  incident  is  evidence  that  [he] 
failed  treatment,  regardless  of  successful  treatment  after  a  second  incident.”    CGPC 
pointed out that the applicant has not alleged that he was not properly screened and 
treated  after  his  first  alcohol  incident  in  1998,  and  the  applicant  did  not  respond  to 
CGPC’s argument after a copy of the Coast Guard’s recommendation was sent to him. 

 
7. 

The record indicates that the applicant’s first alcohol incident occurred on 
January  27,  1998,  when  the  applicant  almost  missed  his  ship’s  movement  because  he 
had gotten drunk.  However, the applicant’s command did not document the incident 
and  refer  him  for  screening  until  March  3,  1998,  presumably  because  the  ship  was 
underway in the interim.  On March 3, 1998, the applicant was advised that a second 
alcohol incident might result in his discharge and that a “date will be set for you to be 
screened  at  a  local  CAAC  facility.”    Because  the  command  failed  to  document  the 
results  of  the  screening,  as  required  by  Article  20.B.2.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the 
date of the screening and the treatment provided are unknown.  As CGPC pointed out, 
the  applicant  has  made  no  allegations  with  respect  to  the  screening  or  treatment  he 
received as a result of his first alcohol incident.  The applicant’s second alcohol incident 
occurred  on  March  17,  1998,  two  weeks  after  he  was  counseled,  warned  about  the 
repercussions  of  another  alcohol  incident,  and,  presumably,  referred  for  screening.  
However, the second incident was not discovered until more than a year later when the 
applicant admitted at mast on May 17, 1999, that he had been drunk on March 17, 1998, 
when he had sex with a female member in a public restroom and in a hotel room with 
others present. 

 
8. 

The applicant has not alleged that he was not screened and treated after 
his first alcohol incident and before his second alcohol incident, and the Board will not 
assume so based only on the absence of a page 7 documenting the results of the screen-
ing.  The record does contain a page 7 dated March 3, 1998—two weeks before the sec-
ond  alcohol  incident—which  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  referred  for  alcohol 

                                                 
6 See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing Reale v. 
United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 

screening.  Absent any relevant allegation by the applicant, the Board presumes that his 
command ensured that he was promptly screened at the CAAC and provided whatever 
treatment  was  indicated  during  his  interview  at  the  CAAC7  during  the  two  weeks 
between March 3 and March 17, 1998.  Moreover, he was warned on March 3 that a sec-
ond alcohol incident would likely result in his discharge.  The fact that he had another 
alcohol  incident  on  March  17  shows  that  he  did  not  take  the  warning  seriously  and 
failed to be rehabilitated.  It was this failure at rehabilitation that led—more than one 
year later—to his administrative discharge with a JPD separation code.   

 
9. 

11. 

10. 

This applicant’s case is distinguishable from that of the applicant in BCMR 
Docket No. 1998-047 because there is no evidence or allegation in this case that what-
ever  treatment  was  recommended  after  the  applicant’s  first  alcohol  incident  was 
delayed  until  after  his  second  alcohol  incident;  the  applicant  has  only  alleged that  he 
did  complete  rehabilitative  treatment  in  1999  after  his  second  alcohol  incident  and 
before his discharge.  The fact that he completed rehabilitative treatment after his sec-
ond alcohol incident and before his discharge does not negate the fact that he failed to 
stay  sober  after  his  first  alcohol  incident  and  was  discharged  because  of  that  failure.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s JPD separation code is neither erroneous 
nor unjust. 
  
 
The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code so that he 
can join the Reserve.  He alleged that he has recognized his problem with alcohol and 
solved it.  However, he submitted no evidence of his sobriety.  Moreover, an RE-4 is the 
only reenlistment code authorized by the SPD Handbook for members discharged due 
to alcohol abuse.  The applicant has not persuaded the Board that his reenlistment code 
should be upgraded. 
 
 
In reviewing the applicant’s record, CGPC noted that whoever prepared 
the applicant’s DD 214 made erroneous entries in blocks 23 and 25.  CGPC recommend-
ed that the Board correct these blocks sua sponte.  The applicant did not respond to the 
recommendation.  Block 23 indicates that the type of separation was “Routine,” which is 
not an authorized type of separation; the block should state “Discharged.”  As the mis-
taken  entry  of  the  word  “Routine”  in  block  23  could  cause  confusion  as  to  the  appli-
cant’s military status in his civilian life, the Board finds that it should be corrected to say 
“Discharged.”    Block 25  of  the  applicant’s  DD  214  shows  “R  241704Z  JUN  99”  as  the 
separation authority.  This notation apparently refers to the discharge orders issued by 
the Personnel Command on June 24, 1999.  Under the SPD Handbook, block 25 should 
show Article 12.B.16. as the separation authority.  Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Man-

                                                 
7  The Board notes that, while it is possible that the rehabilitative treatment provided to the applicant in 
March 1998 after his first alcohol incident was not at the same level as that provided in 1999, the level of 
treatment he received in March 1998 depended on the answers he himself provided to the CAAC screener 
about his alcohol use. 

ual governs discharges by reason of “Unsuitability,” which is the narrative reason for 
separation shown in block 28, directly below block 25 of the DD 214.  As the applicant 
did not object to CGPC’s recommendation and as the Board does not see how the cor-
rection of block 25 to conform to block 28 and the requirements of the SPD Handbook 
could harm the applicant, the Board shall order this correction as well. 
 
 
findings. 
 
 
 
 
 

12.  Accordingly,  partial  relief  should  be  granted  in  accordance  with  these 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  FNMK  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
Block 12.h. on his DD 214 shall be corrected to reflect the date May 17, 1999. 
 
Block 23 on his DD 214 shall be corrected to show that he was “Discharged.” 
 
Block 25 on his DD 214 shall be corrected to show that the separation authority 

        

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

No other relief is granted. 

was Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer