DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-144 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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.  The Chair docketed the 
case on August 11, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and mili-
tary records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  1,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record a CG-3307 (“page 7”) 
dated June 6, 1995, documenting an “alcohol incident”1 on May 6, 1995.  He alleged that 
because he was not screened for alcohol abuse following the incident on May 6, 1995, it 
does not count as an “alcohol incident.”  Therefore, he argued, the page 7 documenting 
the incident should be removed from his record. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 10, 1989.  On January 16, 
1991, while attending  telephone technician “A” school, the applicant was arrested for 

                                                 
1  Article  20.A.2.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1995  defined  an  “alcohol  incident”  as  “[a]ny 
behavior, in which the use or abuse of alcohol is determined to be a significant or causative factor, that 
results in the member’s loss of ability to perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed 
Services, or is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Federal, State, or local laws..” 

driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.  As a result of the arrest, the applicant was 
disenrolled from “A” school the next day “due to fault.”   

 
A  page  7  dated  January  30,  1991,  in  the  applicant’s  record  states  that  he  was 
screened for alcohol abuse on January 28, 1991, at a Naval Counseling and Assistance 
Center (CAAC).  The CAAC “determined that [he] had no alcohol related problems and 
that [his] DUI on 16 JAN 91 was an isolated incident.”  The applicant was ordered to 
attend  “Level  I,  Naval  Alcohol  &  Drug  Safety  Action  Program  (NADSAP)  for  Self 
Awareness and Education.”  The applicant acknowledged the page 7 with his signature. 

 
In 1992, the applicant completed electronics technician “A” school and joined the 
ET rating.  On June 6, 1995, the Executive Officer of the applicant’s cutter entered a page 
7  in  the  applicant’s  record,  which  the  applicant  acknowledged  by  his  signature  and 
which stated the following: 

 
This entry documents an alcohol incident as defined in Chapter 20 of the USCG Person-
nel Manual.  On the night of 5 May 1995, you had been drinking alcohol into the morning 
of 6 May 1995.  You returned to the ship at approximately 0450.  Your condition later on 
that morning was such that you were unable to attend Fisheries School, and the acting 
Executive  Officer  ordered you  to  go  to  bed.    Your  consumption  of  alcohol  greatly  con-
tributed to your inability to attend Fisheries School, a duty to which you were bound … 
 
In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  you  will  undergo  alcohol 
screening and, normally, a treatment plan will be developed for you to follow regarding 
the use of alcohol.  Further Page Sevens will document the results of that screening and 
treatment plan. 
 
After a review of your unit PDR, it is determined that this is your first alcohol incident.  
A second alcohol incident will normally result in separation action (a discharge from the 
Coast Guard).   
 
The Coast Guard’s policy on Alcohol Abuse is contained in the USCG Personnel Manual, 
Chapter  20.    You  are  encouraged  to  read  Chapter  20.  …    If  you  have  any  questions 
regarding  this  counseling,  this  entry  in  your  PDR,  or  the  Coast  Guard’s  alcohol  abuse 
policy; see myself, the Command Drug and Alcohol Representative, your Division Chief, 
your Division Officer, and/or your Department Head. 
 
On September 30, 1995, the Executive Officer completed a page 7 documenting 
the applicant’s unsatisfactory conduct mark on his performance evaluation due to the 
alcohol  incident  on  May  6,  1995.    Another  page  7  documented  the  termination  of  his 
period of eligibility for a Good Conduct Award.  However, his record contains no page 
7 documenting the results of alcohol abuse screening or treatment. 

 
On June 18, 2005, the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) sent the appli-
cant a letter stating that the Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Appointment Board that con-
vened on April 11, 2005, found that he was 

 

not  fully  qualified  for  appointment  to  CWO2  due  to  having  two  alcohol  incidents  (28 
January 1991 and 6 June 1995).  In accordance with the Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
Chapter 20.B.2.h., enlisted members involved in a second alcohol incident will normally 
be processed for separation.  In accordance with Chapter 20.A.2.d. of the PERSMAN, the 
28  January  1991  DUI  should  be  classified  as  an  alcohol  incident.    The  second  alcohol 
incident  on  6  June  1995  was  incorrectly  defined  as  [his]  first  alcohol  incident  by  [his] 
command.  Enlisted personnel with two alcohol incidents may be retained if approved by 
CGPC-epm.  There is no record of [the applicant] receiving approval from CGPC-epm to 
be retained in the Coast Guard. 
 
On July 22, 2005, the applicant and his commanding officer signed a page 7 for 

his record stating the following: 

 
A recent review of your record found documentation of two (2) different events involv-
ing alcohol during your Coast Guard career.  The first event, which occurred on 16 Jan 
91,  was  properly  documented  and  you  received  the  required  screening;  this  event  is 
counted as an alcohol incident.  The second event, which occurred on 6 Jun 95, was docu-
mented by administrative remarks.  However, there is no documentation indicating that 
you  received  the  required  screening.    Per  19  Jul  2005  conversation  between  [the  unit’s 
Executive Officer] and [the Chief of the Advancements and Separations Branch] CGPC-
EPM-1, the omission of an alcohol screening means that the 6 Jun 95 event is not counted 
as  an  alcohol  incident.    In  summary,  as  of  this  date,  you  officially  have  one  alcohol 
incident. 
 
For documentation purposes, this administrative remarks entry  serves as  official notice 
that any further alcohol incidents will result in you being processed for separation as per 
the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series), Chapter 20. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 3, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the appli-
cant’s request.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant’s  command  followed  Coast  Guard  policy  in 
determining that his inability to perform his assigned duty by attending class on May 6, 
1995, as a result of his consumption of alcohol the night before constituted an alcohol 
incident.  He  pointed out that the applicant submitted no evidence to refute the facts 
stated in the page 7 dated June 6, 1995. 
 

Regarding the page 7 completed by the applicant’s commanding officer on July 
22,  2005,  the  JAG  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  Office  of  Military  Personnel—rather 
than CGPC’s Advancement and Separations Branch—establishes all military personnel 
management policies.  The JAG stated that the applicant’s conduct on May 6, 1995, met 
the definition of an alcohol incident in the Personnel Manual, and the definition does 
not  require  that  a  member  be  screened  for  alcohol  abuse.    No  part  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  states  that  an  omission  of  alcohol  screening  voids  a  determination  that  the 

member’s conduct constituted an alcohol incident.  The JAG stated that “the omission of 
an alcohol screening after an alcohol incident has no bearing whatsoever on whether the 
event is counted as an alcohol incident.” 

 
Moreover, the JAG stated, the applicant has not proved that he was not screened.  
He  argued  that  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  must  presume  that  Coast 
Guard  officials  have  carried  out  their  duties  “correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.” 
Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979).    Therefore,  “[p]resumably,  the  applicant  was  properly 
screened as his command said he would be.  The record only proves that the screening 
and its results were not documented in a Page 7 entry as required by the PERSMAN.” 

 
Furthermore, the JAG pointed out, the commanding officer’s statement that the 
lack of a page 7 concerning the results of screening voids the alcohol incident directly 
contradicts a recent finding by the Board in BCMR Docket No. 2005-073: 

 
The  applicant  argued  that  his  discharge  was  erroneous  because  following  his  second 
alcohol incident, his command failed to follow the administrative procedures provided 
under  PM  Article  10.B.  and  failed  to  have  him  screened  and  treated  for  alcohol  abuse.  
However, under PM Article 20.B.2.h.2., the applicant was subject to discharge following 
his second alcohol incident whether or not the command followed other procedures by 
taking him to mast, preparing an unsatisfactory performance evaluation, counseling him 
with  a  page  7,  preparing  a  report  of  the  arrest,  or  referring  him  for  screening  and 
treatment.  In fact, under PM Article 20.B.3.b., a member’s discharge need not be delayed 
following a second alcohol incident to allow time for treatment. 

 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  policies  in  Articles  20.B.2.h.2.  and  20.B.3.b.  correspond 
with those in Articles 20.B.2.g. and 20.B.3.b. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1995.  
Therefore,  the  applicant  “was  subject  to  discharge  following  the  6  May  1995  alcohol 
incident even if his command did not refer him for screening.”  The JAG further stated 
that since in 1995 the applicant’s commanding officer did not follow proper procedures 
to retain him on active duty despite the second alcohol incident, the applicant’s reten-
tion on active duty was an administrative oversight that benefited the applicant. 
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  although  the  page  7  dated  July  22,  2005,  is  erroneous,  the 
Board  should  not  remove  it  from  the  applicant’s  record  as  it  appears  to  protect  the 
applicant from being discharged as a result of the alcohol incident in 1995.  He stated 
that removing the recent page 7 would violate Doyle v. United States, 599 F.2d 984 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979), which “prohibits the BCMR from changing a record in a manner adverse to an 
applicant’s interests.”2 
                                                 
2  Doyle  v.  United  States,  599  F.2d  984,  1000  (Ct.  Cl.  1979)  (stating  that  “[i]t  should  be  kept  in  mind  that 
10 U.S.C. § 1552 grants to the Secretary, acting through correction boards, broad powers to correct and 
remedy errors and injustices.  It is clear that the statute only confers on the Secretary the power to correct 
records in favor of a serviceman and never against him”). 

 

The JAG included with his advisory opinion, but did not adopt,3 a memorandum 
on the case from CGPC.  CGPC stated that following the applicant’s first alcohol inci-
dent  in  1991,  he  was  properly  screened  and  treated  as  required  by  the  Personnel 
Manual.  CGPC stated that the lack of documentation of screening following the second 
alcohol incident “does not negate the incident.”  CGPC stated that the applicant “has 
had two alcohol incidents which can be taken into consideration by the Coast Guard.”  
CGPC further stated, however, that because there is no documentation of screening fol-
lowing the second incident it “cannot be used to discharge the applicant.”  CGPC rec-
ommended removing only the following sentence from the page 7 dated June 6, 1995:  
“After review of your unit PDR, it is determined that this is your first alcohol incident.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On January 4, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

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

                                                 
3  In a telephone conversation on May 12, 2006, the Coast Guard’s Office of Military Justice informed a 
BCMR  staff  member  that  CGPC’s  memorandum  on  this  case  was  mistakenly  sent  to  the  Board  and 
should  not  be  considered  part  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion.    CGPC’s  memorandum  is  sum-
marized here, however, because it was received from the Coast Guard and forwarded to the applicant in 
accordance with the Board’s rules at 33 C.F.R. § 52.42(d). 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

The following regulations from the Personnel Manual (PM) were in effect in both 
1991 and 1995, although the designation of the articles by numbers and letters changed.  
The article designations below are those from the manual in effect in 1995. 
 
 
PM Article 20.A.2.c. defined an “alcohol incident” as “[a]ny behavior, in which 
the  use  or  abuse  of  alcohol  is  determined  to  be  a  significant  or  causative  factor,  that 
results in the member’s loss of ability to perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon 
the  Uniformed  Services,  or  is  a  violation  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice 
(UCMJ), Federal, State, or local laws.   The  member need not be found guilty at court 
martial,  in  a  civilian  court,  or  be  awarded  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  for  the 
behavior to be considered an alcohol incident.” 
 

PM  Article  20.A.2.e.  defined  “alcohol  screening”  as  an  “evaluation  by  a  physi-
cian, clinical psychologist, or a Navy (or DoD or civilian equivalent) CAAC counselor to 
determine the nature and extent of alcohol abuse.  An evaluation by a Collateral Duty 
Alcohol Representative (CDAR) does not satisfy the screening requirement contained in 
this Manual.” 

 
PM Article 20.B.2.d. stated that “[a]ll members who have been involved in alco-
hol incidents or have otherwise shown to be alcohol abusers shall be screened  … .  The 
results of this alcohol screening shall be recorded and acknowledged in the Personnel 
Data Record on form CG-3307 … .  The entry shall include a description of the facts of 
the incident, the results of alcohol screening, the position and organization of the indivi-
dual  conducting  the  screening,  and  a  statement  of  the  treatment  recommended  (if 
any).” 
 

PM Article 20.B.2.f. stated that following an alcohol incident “the commanding 
officer will ensure that the following counseling is conducted and that it is recorded and 
acknowledged by an entry in the member’s Personnel Data Record on form CG-3307 …  
This entry is in addition to that required by paragraph d. above.  (1) The member shall 
be counseled on Coast Guard policy on alcohol abuse contained in this article.”  In 1991, 
subparagraph (2) required that the member be placed on probation.  By 1995, subpara-
graph  (2)  had  been  revised  to  state  that  “[f]or  enlisted  members,  a  statement  shall  be 
made that the member has been involved in their first alcohol incident and that a subse-
quent incident will normally result in separation action.” 
 
 
PM Article 20.B.2.g. stated that “[e]nlisted members involved in a second alcohol 
incident will normally be processed for separation under Article 12-B-16 of this Manual.  
(1)  In those cases involving enlisted members where the Commanding Officer feels that 
an exceptional situation warrants consideration for retention, a letter request for reten-

PM Article 20.B.2.h. stated that “[e]nlisted members involved in a third alcohol 

tion and treatment … shall be forwarded via the chain of command to Commandant … 
who shall … direct the appropriate action regarding retention.” 
 
 
incident shall be processed for separation from the service.” 
 
 
of members who have abused alcohol in accordance with Article 20.B.2.   
 

PM Article 12.B.16.b.5. authorized the administrative discharge for unsuitability 

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: 
 

1. 

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

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 

 
2. 

The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record a page 7 dated 
June  6,  1995,  which  documents  an  alcohol  incident  on  May  6,  1995.    However,  the 
applicant’s  conduct  of  May  6,  1995,  clearly  met  the  definition  of  an  alcohol  incident 
under  Article  20.A.2.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  since  his  commanding  officer  deter-
mined that his consumption of alcohol caused or greatly contributed to his inability to 
attend  his  fisheries  class  that  day,  which  was  an  assigned  duty.    Pursuant  to  Article 
20.B.2.f., the applicant’s command was required to document the alcohol incident on a 
page  7  in  his  record.    Article  20.B.2.f.  states  that  the  page  7  documenting  an  alcohol 
incident is supposed to be in addition to a page 7 documenting the results of alcohol 
screening prepared in accordance with Article 20.B.2.d. 

 
3. 

The applicant argued that the incident on May 6, 1995, does not count as 
an alcohol incident because there is no documentation of the alcohol screening required 
under  Article  20.B.2.d.    His  commanding  officer  advised  him  in  a  page  7  on  July  22, 
2005,  that  “the  omission  of  an  alcohol  screening  means  that  the  6  Jun  95  event  is  not 
counted as an alcohol incident.”  Nothing in the Personnel Manual states that conduct 
can only be considered an alcohol incident if the member later receives alcohol screen-
ing.  In fact, under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual, a member may be expedi-
tiously discharged following a second alcohol incident without any screening or treat-
ment.  Nor does any part of the Personnel Manual state that an alcohol incident should 
not be documented pursuant to Article 20.B.2.f. if the command fails to provide alcohol 
screening  or  fails  to  document  alcohol  screening  in  accordance  with  Article  20.B.2.d.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that his command committed an error or injustice in documenting his conduct 

on May 6, 1995, as an alcohol incident in accordance with Article 20.B.2.f. of the Person-
nel Manual then in effect. 

 
4. 

CGPC pointed out that the page 7 dated June 6, 1995, erroneously states 
that the incident on May 6, 1995, was the applicant’s first alcohol incident when in fact 
he had already had his first alcohol incident on January 16, 1991.  If the applicant asked 
the Board to remove the word “first” from the page 7, he would be entitled to such a 
correction since he had a prior alcohol incident.  However, removing the word “first” 
from the page 7 would not clearly be in the applicant’s interest, and he did not request 
this correction or respond to the recommendation in CGPC’s memorandum.  Therefore, 
the Board will not order such a correction. 

 
5. 

The  JAG  pointed  out  that  the  page  7  dated  July  22,  2005,  erroneously 
states that “the omission of an alcohol screening means that the 6 Jun 95 event is not 
counted as an alcohol incident.”  The JAG recommended that the Board not remove this 
page 7 from the applicant’s record as it protects him from the possibility of being dis-
charged  based  on  his  second  alcohol  incident  on  May  6,  1995.    Because  the  applicant 
neither  requested  removal  of  the  July  22,  2005,  page  7  nor  responded  to  the  JAG’s 
advisory opinion, the Board will not remove this page 7 from his record.  

 
6. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 Elizabeth F. Buchanan 

 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 
 Audrey Roh