DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2011-094 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on February 3, 2011, and subsequently prepared 
the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  8,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD 

 

The Board considered the applicant’s application, his military and medical records, the advisory 
opinion, and the applicant’s reply to the advisory opinion.   
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was retired from the 
Coast Guard due to longevity of service instead of being involuntarily honorably discharged on 
September  9,  2009,  with  19  years,  7  months,  and  8  days  of  active  duty.    The  applicant  was 
discharged  because  of  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure,  with  the  corresponding  GPD  separation 
code, and an RE-4 (not eligible) reenlistment code.  The applicant  received half separation pay 
(approximately $40,000).     
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  given  the  length  of  his  service  and  “the  good  things  [he] 
accomplished,  he  believes  he  should  have  been  retired.”    The  applicant  stated,  in  addition,  he 
suffered  an  injustice  because  the  Coast  Guard  took  until  July  31,  2009  to  approve  the  findings 
and recommendation of his administrative separation board (ASB) that convened and concluded 
on  April  28,  2008,  approximately  five  months  before  he  would  have  become  eligible  for  a        
20-year active duty retirement.   The applicant also alleged that his discharge was unjust because 
at the time he was suffering from and being treated for severe depression.  The applicant stated 
the following: 

 

 

 

I  don’t  fully  understand  how the Admin  Separation Board  came to  a decision  in 
May of 2008 to discharge [me] and it was 1 year and 2 months later before I was 
separated.    This  period  was  devastating  for  me.    I  was  going  through  a  divorce 
and  recommended  for  discharge,  both  occurring  at  the  same  time.    Over  the 
course of that year I was treated for depression.  As per the Coast Guard doctors, I 
was prescribed many different depression medications and sleeping medications.  
The  doctor  also  had  me  out  on  convalescent  leave  for  roughly  six  months.    I 
finally got back to work and thought I would be given the opportunity to complete 
my  20  years,  when  discharge  papers  were  issued.    It  does  not  seem  that  I  was 
afforded due process.   
 
If you review my service record you will see even when I had disciplinary marks, 
my  performance  marks  never  suffered.    I  always  got  the  job  done  at  an  above 
average level.  I received numerous awards . . . and saved the government a lot of 
money.  I know the Coast Guard’s policies, but it is tough to have a great career 
marred  by  a  few  bad  decisions.    I  hope  the  Board  will  reconsider  the  [Coast 
Guard’s] decision.  If [the Coast Guard] need[s] me to complete my final months, 
I will go anywhere and do anything for the Coast Guard.   

 
 
In  addition  to  his  statement,  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  a  temporary  court  order 
with  respect  to  custody  of  and  visitation  with  his  minor  children  from  the  Probate  and  Family 
Court  Department  of  the  Trial  Court  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  copies  from  his 
ASB  proceeding,  and  copies  from  his  medical  records  that  show  he  was  under  treatment  for 
depression.     
 

CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE 

 

On November 28, 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  On June 7, 1991, he 
obtained the storekeeper rating (SK) and subsequently advanced in that rating to pay grade E-6 
(SK1).   
 
On  January  25,  2008,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  informed  the  applicant 
that  he  was  recommending  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  due  to 
unsuitability because of alcohol abuse under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  The CO 
informed  the  applicant  that  the  discharge  was  initiated  because  of  the  applicant’s  third  alcohol 
incident  that  occurred  on  October  17,  2007,  as  documented  on  an  administrative  remarks  page 
(page 7) dated December 10, 2007.  

 
On  January  25,  2008,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  in  which  he  acknowledged 
notification  of  the  proposed  discharge,  attached  a  statement  in  his  behalf,  objected  to  being 
discharged, and requested an ASB hearing.    

 
On  February  28,  2008,  the  Commanding  Officer  (CO)  of  the  Military  Personnel 
Command  directed  that  an ASB  be  convened  to  a  conduct  hearing  and  to  recommend  whether 

 

 

the  applicant  should  be  retained  or  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard,  and  the  character  of 
separation, if recommended.   

  
On March 4, 2008, the applicant was assigned a military lawyer to represent him before 

the ASB.   

 

The ASB Proceedings 

 
The ASB was held on April 25, 2008.  The recorder and the applicant (identified as the 

respondent in the ASB) had an opportunity to present evidence.    

 
The  summarized  record  of  the ASB  was  issued  undated  with  the  following  enclosures:  
(1)  Findings  of  fact,  opinions,  and  recommendation;  (2)  Witness  Testimony  Summary;  (3) 
Recorder’s  exhibits;  (4)  Respondent’s  Exhibits;  and  (5)  Letter  of  Deficiency  w/memorandum.  
The ASB made the following findings of fact: 

 
1.  On  or  about  17  [October]  2007,  Respondent  was  involved  in  a  third  documented 
alcohol incident.  Respondent failed to report to work . . . . BMC [D], the XPO, phoned 
Respondent’s home to locate Respondent.  Respondent’s wife stated that Respondent was 
home asleep, had been out all night and was drinking.  Concerned that the combination of 
alcohol and anti-depression medication was going to cause an adverse reaction, the XPO 
and BM1 [C] went to Respondent’s home to take him to Jordan Hospital.  The XPO and 
BM1  smelled  alcoholic  beverages  on  Respondent  when  he  entered  the  government 
vehicle  to  drive  him  to  the  emergency  room.    (Testimony  of  BMC  [D],  Testimony  of 
BM1 [C], Testimony of CWO4 G; Statement of BMC [D] and Statement of BM1 [C]).  
 
2.    On  May  30,  2001,  [the  applicant]  was  arrested  by  the  Metro-Dade  (Florida)  Police 
Department for driving while intoxicated.  Respondent was screened by NAS Key West, 
and  successfully  completed  a  three-week  level  II  outpatient  program  at  CAAS  NAS 
Jacksonville, FL.  An administrative remark dated 31 May 01, noted this was considered 
his  first  alcohol  incident,  and  ordered  him  to  participate  in  an  aftercare  program  which 
included abstaining from alcohol . . . 
 
3.  Respondent was involved in a second alcohol incident [in 2002].   He was arrested a 
second  time  by  Metro-Dade  Police  Department  for  driving  while  intoxicated.    This 
incident  went  unreported  to  his  superiors  until  a  screening  for  his  security  clearance 
[update in 2004] . . . .    
 
4.  In September 2004 Respondent completed an intensive substance abuse rehabilitation 
program . . .  The discharge summary . . . stated Respondent’s prognosis for an alcohol-
incident  free  future  was  considered  good  provided  he  followed  the  recommended 
aftercare plan.   
 
5.  On 12 January 2005, Respondent was notified of discharge proceeding for his second 
alcohol-related  incident.    His  command  recommended  retention  after  his  second  related 

 

 

alcohol  incident  due  to  his  superior  work  performance  and  the  positive  steps  he  had 
shown in his treatment and aftercare programs.   
 

  # 

# 

# 

 
7.  Respondent was advised at his first and his second alcohol incidents that he would be 
processed for separation from the Coast Guard [if he was involved in any further alcohol 
incidents]. 
 

  # 

# 

# 

 
9.  Respondent was admitted in October 2007, and completed an inpatient rehabilitation 
program  for  alcohol  and  substance  abuse  for  a  45-day  period  at  Gosnold  Treatment 
Center.   
 
10.  Respondent has asked for retention and stated that his current medical problems [are] 
due to his depression and medication, and his past problems at his unit [were] due to the 
fact that he is a recovering alcoholic. . . .    
 
11.    Respondent’s  Coast  Guard  career,  by  all  accounts,  has  [been]  for  the  most  part 
marked by superior personal performance . . .   
 
12.  Respondent has failed on more than three occasions at his present command to either 
(1) return to  his  unit after he had [gone] out  for a parts run, (2) report to work and lied 
about the reason he did not report i.e. his daughter was sick, and (3) failed to report to his 
unit . . . .  
 
13.    Any  behavior,  in  which  alcohol  is  determined,  by  the  [CO]  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 Uniformed Code of 
Military  Justice,  Federal,  State,  or  local  laws  is  an  alcohol  incident  for  the  purposes  of 
administrative separation policy.  
 
14.  [The respondent’s] continual abuse of alcohol has severely jeopardized the safety of 
the public and his shipmates and has brought discredit upon the service . . .    
 
The ASB was of the opinion  that the applicant  was aware of the Coast  Guard’s alcohol 
abuse  policy  prior  to  his  third  alcohol  incident;  that  he  was  treated  several  times  for  alcohol 
disease;   and that he engaged in behaviors repeatedly that called into question his ability to lead 
and  mentor  junior  personnel.   The ASB  stated  that  superlative  personal  performance  alone  did 
not justify the applicant’s retention in the Coast Guard. 
 
 
Guard with an honorable discharge for unsuitability (alcohol abuse).  
 

The ASB  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  administratively  separated  from  the  Coast 

 

 

On June 25, 2008, the applicant’s ASB lawyer wrote that he did not have any substantial issues 
with  anything  in  the  ASB  report,  “as  everything  generally  reflects  [his]  recollections  of  the 
proceedings.”  The only thing added by the ASB lawyer was a “Letter of Deficiency,” requesting 
that the execution of any  discharge be suspended pursuant  to  section 12.B.34. of the Personnel 
Manual1 to allow the applicant to earn a 20-year retirement.   

 
On  July  29,  2008,  the  CO  of  the  Military  Personnel  Command  agreed  with  the 
recommendation  of  the  ASB  to  administratively  separate  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard.  
The CO noted that the applicant had been retained after his second alcohol incident based mainly 
on  his  stellar  work  performance  and  the  understanding  that  his  alcohol  consumption  would 
remain under control.   
 
 
recommendation of the ASB to separate the applicant because of alcohol abuse.   
 
 
On July 31, 2009, the Chief of the Personnel  Services Division  took  final  action on the 
ASB  and  approved  the  ASB’s  findings  of  fact,  opinions,  and  recommendation.    The  final 
reviewing authority stated the following in approving the applicant’s separation: 
 

On  August  7,  2008,  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  District  One  concurred  with  the 

The record submitted by the [ASB] includes proper documentation of two alcohol 
incidents  and  administrative  remarks  references  to  a  third  (sequentially,  the 
second) documented alcohol incident.  In addition to these alcohol incidents, [the 
applicant’s]  service  record  includes  evidence  of  repeated  counseling  for  being 
absent  from  work  without  authorization  and  at  least  two  command-initiated 
substance  abuse  screenings  not  associated  with  the  alcohol  incidents.    In 
September  2004,  [the  applicant]  was  deemed  a  “treatment  failure”  by  the 
Substance  Abuse  Rehabilitation  Program,  and  his  command 
imposed  a 
requirement to abstain from alcohol for the remainder of his Coast Guard career, a 
requirement that was not complied with.  [The applicant] shall be separated from 
the  Coast  Guard  in  accordance  with  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
COMDTISNT  M1000.6A,  with  an  honorable  discharge  for  unsuitability  due  to 
alcohol abuse.     

 
Applicant’s Statement to ASB 
 

On January 31, 2008, the applicant submitted a request for retention in the Coast Guard.  
He acknowledged that he was a recovering alcoholic, which had caused problems in the past.  He 
also  stated  that  his  depression  and  medication,  which  are  documented  in  his  medical  record, 
created  his  recent  problems.   The  applicant  denied  that  he  drank  alcohol  on  October  17,  2007, 
and stated that he could not explain why members of his unit stated that they smelled alcohol that 
morning.  He stated that he had called in  to  work on the morning of the  17th and informed the 
unit that he needed more time to look for a place to live since he and his wife were separating.  
He stated that after he returned home around 11 a.m., BMC D and BM1 C came to his house and 
                                                 
1  Article  12.B.34.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  allows  the  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC)  to  suspend 
executing an approved discharge for a specified period, if the circumstances of a case indicate a reasonable prospect 
for rehabilitation.     

 

 

stated that the command wanted the applicant to go to the hospital, which the applicant assumed 
was  for  issues  related  to  his  latest  bout  of  depression.    He  stated  hospital  personnel  refused  to 
conduct a blood test on him, as requested by the BMC, because they did not see a need for it.  He 
stated  that  if  there  was  concern  by  unit  personnel  that  alcohol  was  involved  a  blood  test, 
urinalysis, or breathalyzer should have been administered.  In oral testimony before the ASB, the 
applicant  stated  again  that  “the  root  of  all  his  lateness  and  absences  [from  work]  was  due  to 
depression.”   He  also  restated that he did  not  consume alcohol on the morning of October 17th 
and that he did  not  know why  witnesses at  the ASB stated that he smelled like alcohol on that 
morning. 
  
The applicant’s wife submitted a statement to the ASB in which she wrote the following 

in pertinent part: 
 

I  had  received  several  phone  calls  from  [BMC  D]  who  was  looking  for  the 
applicant  to  return  to  work.    When  [BMC  D]  called  back,  I  told  him  that  [the 
applicant] had just come home.  He said he would come to our house to bring him 
to the base.  When he got to our house, he spoke to [the applicant] and told him he 
was going to take him to [the] hospital.  When I asked him why they would go to 
[the]  hospital,  I  believe  his  reply  was  to  make  sure  [the  applicant]  was  alright.  
Later  that  night,  the  hospital  social  worker  called  me  at  home.    She  was  very 
concerned about the pressure [the applicant] felt he was under.  She conveyed to 
me  that  [the  applicant]  seemed  extremely  overwhelmed  and  was  having  trouble 
coping  with  family  and  work  issues.    I  do  remember  her  telling  me  that  [the 
applicant]  had  requested  a  blood  test  be  taken.    She  stated  that  a  blood  test  was 
unnecessary  since  this  was  obviously  an  emotional  issue  and  she  strongly  urged 
me to have him continue with therapy and medication for his depression.  

 
Medical Evidence before the ASB: 
  

According to the list of exhibits attached to the ASB summarized report, the applicant’s 
“Record  of  Medical  Primary  Care  Boston”  was  submitted  to  the ASB.    The  medical  evidence 
shows that on July 25, 2007, the applicant was seen at a primary care clinic for an evaluation of 
depression.  The medical  note indicated that he had a history of depression  since 2000; that he 
was taking Effexor for depression; that he had marital problems; and that a friend had committed 
suicide  by  hanging  a  couple  of  months  earlier.     The  applicant  was  released  from  this  medical 
appointment  with  work  limitations  of  no  boat/sea  duty,  climbing,  hazardous  tools,  or  weapons.  
He  was  treated  with  Atenolol  for  his  high  blood  pressure  and  referred  to  the  psychiatry 
department. 
 
 
On  September  10,  2007,  the  applicant  was  seen  by  Dr.  R  who  noted  the  applicant’s 
history of depression and his treatment with Effexor.  The medical note stated that the applicant 
was  brought  into  the  clinic  by  his  CO  and  XO  who  stated  that  sometimes  the  applicant 
disappears  from  work  and  tells  his  command  that  his  medication  is  “screwing  him  up.”    The 
medical  note  stated  that  the  applicant  had  missed  appointments  with  his  psychologist,  but  he 
denied that he was drinking.  The medical note indicated that the command wanted a fitness for 
duty determination on the applicant. 

 

 

 
 
On September 26, 2007, the applicant was evaluated to determine whether he should be 
referred to a military psychiatrist for a fitness for duty determinaiton.  The medical note indicated 
that the applicant  was taking Effexor and  that he was under increased stress due to marital  and 
financial  problems,  job  stress,  and  a  pending  PCS  move.    The  medical  note  stated  that  the 
applicant  was  seeing  a  psychologist  for  talk  therapy  and  that  he  was  scheduled  for  a  military 
psychological evaluation.   
 
 
On October 10, 2007, the applicant had a follow-up medical appointment.  The physician 
noted the applicant’s alcohol dependence, depression, and uncontrolled high blood pressure, and 
that  he  was  treated  for  these  conditions  with Antinol  (high  blood  pressure)  and  Effexor.    The 
applicant was released with work limitations that included no climbing, boat/ sea duty, hazardous 
tools, or weapons.  
  
On  October  18,  2007,  the  applicant  underwent  his  military  psychiatric  evaluation.    He 
 
was diagnosed with major depression recurrent moderate, alcohol dependence in remission, and 
partner relational problem.  He was released with work/duty limitations and continued treatment 
with Effexor.  The psychiatrist recommended continued treatment and retention on active duty.   
 
 
On December 7, 2007, the applicant had a follow-up appointment, and the medical note 
indicated that the applicant was discharged from a 30-day alcohol program.  He was continued 
on Effexor.   
 

A  January  7,  2008  medical  note  indicated  that  the  applicant  was  doing  well  and  fit  for 

duty status with no boat, sea, or weapons duty. 

 
A  February  6,  2008  medical  note  indicated  that  the  applicant  was  released  without 

limitations.   

 
A  November  12,  2008  medical  note  indicated  that  the  applicant  was  treated  for 
depression  due  to  his  divorce  proceedings  and  pending  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard.   The 
applicant was prescribed Fluoxetine and Clonazepam to treat his depression.  He was referred to 
psychology with work limitations of no boat/sea duty.   

 
On February 6, 2009, the applicant was placed in sick-at-home status.  On April 29, 2009, 

he was diagnosed with a dysthmic disorder and his sick-at-home status was continued.  

 
 On June 12, 2009 the applicant was seen for a follow-up appointment. His diagnosis was 
depression, alcohol dependence, and essential hypertension.  Sick-at-home status was continued. 

 
  On June 24, 2009, the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and his status 
changed  to  work/duty  with  limitations.    The  medical  note  indicated  that  because  the  applicant 
had  missed  several  psychiatric  appointments,  his  command  decided  that  he  should  return  to 
work, to  which the medical  officer agreed.  The  applicant  denied that he  was drinking alcohol, 
although the medical officer was unsure that was the case.   

 

 

 

On August  31,  2009,  the  applicant  underwent  an  abbreviated  physical  in  which  he  was 
released  from  that  appointment  without  limitations.    The  medical  note  indicated  that  he  was 
taking Celexa for depression and Midodardis for high blood pressure.   
 
Applicant’s Alcohol Treatment Record 
 

On July 1, 1999, the applicant’s command referred him to the Counseling and Assistance 
Center  (CAAC)  for  evaluation  because  the  applicant  was  suspected  of  abusing  alcohol.    The 
applicant denied having any problems with alcohol and the assessment was terminated because 
of the applicant’s lack of cooperation.   
 

On August  9,  2001,  the  applicant  completed  a  three-week  level  II  outpatient  treatment 
program.  He  was  diagnosed  as  alcohol  dependent.  The  applicant  was  advised  in  a  letter  that 
members  diagnosed  as  alcohol-dependent  must  abstain  from  alcohol  to  maintain  sobriety.    His 
aftercare  plan  (provided  on  an  administrative  remarks  page  (page  7))  included  abstaining  from 
alcohol  for  12  months,  making  quarterly  aftercare  reports  for  two  years,  attending  weekly 
meetings  with  the  CDAR  (command  drug  and  alcohol  representative),  and  attending  two  AA 
meeting  per  week.   The  applicant  was  warned  that  failure  to  comply  with  his  aftercare  plan  or 
involvement  in  a  second  alcohol-related  incident  could  result  in  his  separation  from  the  U.S. 
Coast Guard.    The applicant acknowledged the page 7 entry.   
 

On  May  21,  2003,  at  his  command’s  direction,  the  Substance  Abuse  Rehabilitation 
Program (SARP) screened the applicant for suspected alcohol abuse.  The screening report states 
that  the  applicant  did  not  meet  any  of  the  criteria  for  alcohol  abuse  listed  in  the  DSM  IV, 
although  the  report  noted  that  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  as  alcohol  dependent  in  2001.    The 
screening  report  noted  that  the  applicant’s  earlier  aftercare  plan  instructed  him  to  abstain  from 
alcohol  for  only  one  year.    The  SARP  counselor  recommended  that  the  applicant  attend  a 
residential treatment program at the earliest convenience.   
 

On September 13, 2004, the applicant was again screened by the SARP at the request of 
his command because of his alcohol history and a recently discovered 2002 unreported arrest for 
driving  while  intoxicated.  The  Commanding  Officer  (CO),  Naval  Health  Care  New  England, 
noted that the applicant received treatment for alcohol abuse at a residential facility in 2001.  The 
CO of the health care facility  recommended that  the applicant  be processed for separation as a 
treatment failure.  In this regard, the CO of that facility wrote: 
 

Based  on  this  screening  and  reevaluation,  a  review  of  his  records,  his  stated 
amount  and  pattern  of  usage,  and  criteria  under  the  [DSM-IV]  [the  applicant’s] 
2001  alcohol  dependency  diagnosis  was  and  is  appropriate.    His  disclosures 
suggest that specific psychopathologies of alcoholism persist and will be recurrent 
as long as he remains in denial.  It is felt that his failure to follow a recovery plan, 
his  continued  use  of  alcohol,  his  manipulation  and  rationalization  is  evidence  of 
[the applicant’s disregard] for the Coast Guard’s policy concerning alcohol abuse.  
It  is  felt  that  [the  applicant]  will  resist  treatment  unless  it  is  the  program  of  his 
choice and that his potential for further useful service and prognosis for avoiding 
further use of alcohol is not encouraging at this time.   

 

 

 

 
In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  recommended  that  [the  applicant]  be  processed  for 
separation as a treatment failure . . . Please notify the SARP for a treatment quota  
. . . In the interim it is recommended that [the applicant] immediately commence 
individual counseling and group therapy as designated by the SARP.  It is further 
recommended  that  he  abstain  from  alcohol,  attend  a  minimum  of  five  [AA] 
meetings weekly, and meet at least once a week with your CDAR.   

On September 24, 2004, the applicant’s command placed an administrative remarks page 
(page 7) in his record noting his earlier screening on September 13 2004.  He was informed that 
he  was  a  treatment  failure  and  that  he  was  required  to  adhere  to  a  new  aftercare  plan  that 
included  abstaining  from  alcohol  for  the  remainder  of  his  Coast  Guard  career,  attending  AA 
meetings  3  times  per  week,  attending  individual  and  group  therapy  sessions  at  SARP  once  per 
week, completing an intensive outpatient treatment program, and meeting twice per month with a 
CDAR or a member of his command cadre.  The page 7 also informed the applicant that failure 
to adhere to the aftercare plan would result in his immediate discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 

On  November  16,  2004,  the  applicant  successfully  completed  the  SARP  New  London 
Intensive  Outpatient  Treatment  Program,  with  a  good  prognosis  for  an  alcohol-incident  free 
future.  He was diagnosed as alcohol-dependent and given the following aftercare plan: abstain 
from  alcohol,  meet  weekly  with  command  CDAR,  continue  outpatient  treatment  in  weekly 
continuing care group at SARP Newport for 24 sessions, and attend two AA meetings weekly for 
six months.   
 

On  January  12,  2005,  the  applicant’s  CO  began  administrative  separation  proceedings 
against the applicant because of a second alcohol incident that occurred on November 26, 2002.  
However,  the  CO  recommended  the  applicant’s  retention  because  of  his  superior  work 
performance.  On March 29, 2005, the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command  (CGPC) 
ordered that the applicant be retained in the service, provided that he successfully completed his 
aftercare program.  CGPC directed that the applicant be advised that any further incidents would 
result in a recommendation for his separation from the Coast Guard. 
 

On October 2, 2007, the applicant was screened and assessed at SARP New London as a 
result of a command referral to determine if he had a substance abuse problem and if education 
or  treatment  was  required.    He  was  diagnosed  as  alcohol-dependent  and  recommended  for  an 
inpatient treatment program.  He was told to abstain from alcohol from the date of the screening 
assessment through the date of successful completion of treatment.    

 
 
A November 30, 2007 letter indicates that the applicant attended a 30-day treatment for 
alcohol abuse where he was exposed to psycho-education groups, attended one-on-one therapy, 
attended outside AA meetings, and developed recovery management strategies.   
 
Applicant’s Performance Record 
 

Documents from the applicant’s military record show that he earned marks of 7 out of a high 

of 7 in the following performance categories for the performance periods identified below:    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Performance period ending October 31, 1998, marks of 7 in “quality of work,” “customs 

and courtesies,” and “adaptability” categories. 

  Performance period ending April 30, 1999, marks of 7 in “quality of work,” “customs and 

courtesies,” and “adaptability.” 

  Performance  period  ending  October  31,  1999,  marks  of  7  in  “quality  of  work,”  and 

“respecting others.”   

  Performance  evaluation  dated  April  15,  2000,  marks  of  7  in  “quality  of  work,”  and 

“respecting others.” 

  Performance period ending November 30, 2000, marks of 7 in “adaptability.”   

 
 
The  applicant  received  the  Coast  Guard  Commendation  Medal  for  “outstanding 
achievement  while  serving  as  independent  storekeeper  and  Assistant  Property  Officer  at  First 
Coast  Guard District,  Boston,  Massachusetts  . . .” from  November 1995  to  May 2000.  He has 
also received 4 Good Conduct Medals, among several other awards that are listed on his DD 214.   
 
 
The  applicant’s  record  also  includes  periods  when  he  was  absent  from  work  without 
permission  or  did  not  report  to  work  as  scheduled.    On  April  10,  2006,  he  was  placed  on 
performance probation for 6 months because he had been late to work on several occasions.  He 
also had two non-judicial punishments: one for not reporting an arrest for  DUI in 2002 and one 
for not reporting to work on time.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 1, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief.    The  JAG  argued  that  the 
applicant  had  failed  to  substantiate  an  error  or  injustice  regarding  the  ASB  and  subsequent 
discharge.  The ASB  was conducted in  substantial  compliance with  the  Coast  Guard Personnel 
Manual.  He stated that the applicant had at least two properly documented alcohol incidents and 
a third that triggered the ASB.  Article 20.B.2.h.2. of the Personnel Manual states that “Enlisted 
members  involved  in  a  second  alcohol  incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation” 
pursuant to Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.   
 
 
the reviewing authority in acting on his ASB, the JAG stated the following: 
 

Regarding the applicant’s contention that he suffered an injustice because of the delay of 

[T]he Final Reviewing Authority took action on the applicant’s [ASB] on 31 July 
2009, roughly 1 year and 2 months since the ASB Board’s recommendation.  It is 
not  uncommon  for  the  ASB  Board  review  process  to  involve  delays  based  on 
document  review  and  record  corrections.    [Chapter  1.G.  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Administration  Separation  Manual]  state:  “Failure  to  process  administrative 
separation within the prescribed time goals (expressed in calendar days) does not 

 

 

affect  the  validity  of  a  separation  decision.”      .  .  .    [T]he  Final  Reviewing 
Authority  took  into  account  all  information  provided  regarding  the  applicant’s 
record  and  decided  to  separate  the  applicant  with  an  honorable  discharge  for 
unsuitability due to alcohol abuse.   
 
Therefore, it is the [Coast Guard’s] opinion that the applicant’s request should be 
denied.  The applicant’s continued abuse of alcohol was the cause of his discharge 
[in  accordance  with Article]  12.B.16.  of  the  [Personnel  Manual].   The  applicant 
was  afforded  multiple  command-initiated  substance  abuse  screenings  and  was 
deemed  a  “treatment  failure”  by  the  Substance  Abuse  Rehabilitation  Program.  
The  applicant  was  ordered  to  abstain  from  alcohol  for  the  remainder  of  his  CG 
career, which the applicant failed to comply with.  It is truly unfortunate that the 
applicant  was  discharged  with  19+  years  of  service;  however,  the  applicant’s 
continued abuse of alcohol is contrary to CG policy.  The applicant was extremely 
fortunate to have a delay in the final processing of his discharge to afford him the 
required  time  to  get  his  affairs  in  order  before  discharge.    Also,  although  the 
applicant  engaged  in  numerous  undesirable  behaviors  regarding  his  alcohol  use, 
the applicant was still honorably discharged and received a substantial amount of 
severance pay for his services  . . .   

 
Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) Memorandum 
 
 
The JAG attached comments from the PSC and asked that they be accepted as a part of 
the advisory opinion. PSC stated that according to Article 1.B.1. of the Coast Guard Separation 
Manual,  
 

[d]ischarge  and  retention  decisions  are  driven  by  the  needs  of  the  Coast  Guard 
and not by the needs of individual members or individual commands.  Members 
do not have a right to remain on active duty in the Coast Guard regardless of the 
length  of  their  service  or  the  hardship  their  separation  might  cause  .  .  .    Sound 
personnel  management,  as  well  as  fairness,  dictates  that  the  decision  to  separate 
such  a  member  be  carefully  considered,  and  that  the  member  be  provided  an 
opportunity to be heard and to present and challenge evidence to be considered by 
the separation authority.  

 

PSC  concurred  fully  with  the  final  action  of  the  reviewing  authority  and  adopted  the 

findings of the investigation as the justification for discharging the applicant.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  September  19,  2011,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  advisory 
opinion.   He stated that he disagreed with the advisory opinion and believed that he has suffered 
an injustice.  The applicant stated the following: 
 

The [advisory opinion] states that although it took 1 year and 2 months to process 
my  discharge,  it  has  no  bearing.    They  claim  this  is  due  to  the  [ASB]  having 

 

 

 

delays based on document  review and record corrections.   I think the Board can 
see this injustice and I do believe this would not be considered due process in any 
civilian court.   I know the military has different standards, but  this seems above 
and beyond.   I believe the manual  also  states that discharge should occur within 
60 days. 
 
The [advisory opinion] also states that I was fortunate to have had time to get my 
affairs in order.  I was going through a divorce and was losing my career.  I had no 
idea  what  was  happening  day  to  day.    I  woke  up  every  morning  with  intense 
anxiety.    I  was  being  treated  for  severe  depression,  as  was  supported  in  my 
medical record.  I don’t believe [that] it takes more than 1 month to get someone’s 
affairs in order.  This was a living hell.  I believe it just continued to give me false 
hope that maybe they would let me retire.  I was less than 5 months away from 20 
years of service.   
 
I realize I have had a few problems in my Coast Guard career, but I hope you will 
also consider the positives and the accolades I received during my career.  I have 
numerous  medals.    My  service  jacket  shows  all  the  positive  documentation.    I 
would also like you to consider that throughout my whole career, even the bumps, 
my performance marks never suffered.  I always got the job done.   
 
I understand that the Coast Guard did allow me a second chance after the second 
alcohol incident.  The [advisory opinion] stated that I should not consume alcohol 
again.  The [advisory opinion] states there was two properly documented alcohol 
incidents,  with  a  third  alcohol  incident  referenced.    The  reference  that  they  are 
referring to include my being brought to the hospital and them refusing to take a 
blood best because they did not believe it was alcohol related.   They believed it 
was the heavy depression medication I was taking.   
 
I  loved  serving  my  country.    I  love  the  Coast  Guard.    It  was  the  one  thing  that 
fulfilled me in life.  The money I finally received as severance pay only pays for 
about  4  to  5  years  of  health  care  for  my  children.    I  believe  I  deserved  more.    I 
would do more for the service and complete anything if allowed.  I have been out 
of  work  since  my  discharge  and  find  it  hard  with  the  “unsuitability”  title on  my 
DD 214.  I hope you will see in my favor. 

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 submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.    
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

2.  The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard due to alcohol abuse because of 
his  third  alcohol  incident  that  occurred  on  October  17,  2007,  when  he  did  not  report  to  work 

 

 

allegedly  due  to  alcohol  consumption.    Article  20.A.2.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  defines  an 
“alcohol  incident”  as  "[a]ny  behavior,  in  which  alcohol  is  determined,  by  the  commanding 
officer,    to  be  a  significant  or  causative  factor  that  results  in  the  member's  loss  of  ability  to 
perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon the uniformed services, or is a violation of [law] . 
.  ."    Article  20.B.2.i.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  required  that  enlisted  members 
involved in a third alcohol incident be processed for separation.  Because the applicant had more 
than 8 years of service, he was entitled to a hearing before an ASB, which occurred on April 28, 
2008.    The  ASB  recommended  the  applicant’s  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  an 
honorable discharge.  The ASB was approved on July 31, 2009 and the applicant was discharged 
on September 1, 2009.   
 

3.  The applicant alleged that he suffered an injustice because of the Coast Guard’s delay 
in  approving the findings and recommendation of his ASB.   In this  regard, the applicant  stated 
that  the  ASB  concluded  on  April  28,  2008  and  it  was  not  approved  until  July  31,  2009, 
approximately five months before he would have qualified for a 20-year active duty retirement.  
He  stated  that  the  long  delay  was  an  injustice  because  it    led  him  to  believe  that  he  would  be 
allowed to retire.   Although Article 1.G. of the Administrative Separation Board Manual states 
that  the ASB  record  with  endorsements  should  be  received  at  Commander  CGPC  (PSC  in  this 
case)  no more than 30 days after the commencement of the ASB and that the final action should 
be taken by CGPC no more than 45 days after receipt of the ASB record, the provision clearly 
states that “[f]ailure to process an administrative separation within the prescribed time goals does 
not affect the validity of a separation board.”  The Delegate of the Secretary of the Department of 
Transportation stated in Docket No. 328-86(P) that a simple time delay in submission of an OER 
does  not  of  itself  constitute  error  that  would  require  the  relief  sought  by  an  applicant  in  the 
absence of some demonstrated resultant prejudice.  While the Board notes that the applicant may 
have been hopeful that the CGPC would have allowed him to remain on active duty, he has not 
shown how he was prejudiced by the fact that it took over a year for CGPC to approve his ASB.  
There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  if  CGPC  had  approved  the ASB  sooner  the  applicant 
would have been allowed to remain on active duty. 

 
4.    The  applicant  argued  that  it  was  an  injustice  for  the  Coast  Guard  to  separate  him 
because his severe depression and treatment caused or contributed to his “problems.”  However, 
the ASB was aware of the fact that the applicant was undergoing treatment for depression.  The 
ASB summary report listed the medical record of the applicant’s treatment for depression as an 
exhibit  and  the  applicant  mentioned  his  depression  and  treatments  in  his  written  and  oral 
statements  to  the ASB. Therefore,  the  Board  presumes  that  the ASB  considered  the  applicant’s 
depression  and  treatment  during  its  deliberation.   The  applicant  indicated  in  a  statement  to  the 
ASB that the medication that he was taking  for his  depression caused his  behavior and not  the 
intake of alcohol.   However, the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence before this Board 
to  prove that he was, in fact, suffering from  the effects  of his  depression  medication instead of 
the  effects  of  alcohol  at  the  time  he  failed  to  report  to  work  on  October  17,  2007.    The  Board 
notes  that  the  XPO  and  a  BM1  stated  that  on  the  morning  of  October  17th  on  the  ride  to  the 
hospital with the applicant, they smelled alcohol on the applicant.  The Board also notes that the 
applicant’s military lawyer reviewed the ASB report summary and did not raise any objections to 
the  manner  in  which  the ASB  treated  the  evidence  related  to  the  applicant’s  depression  or  any 
other objection to the ASB proceedings.  

 

 

 
5.    The  applicant  argued  that  it  was  an  injustice  to  separate  him  from  the  Coast  Guard 
because  the  quality  of  his  work  performance  never  suffered.    In  this  regard,  he  stated  that  ‘I 
always got the job done at an above-average level.  I received numerous awards . . . and saved 
the government a lot of money.  I know the Coast Guard’s policies, but it is tough to have a great 
career  marred  by  a  few  bad  decisions.”    However,  the  Board  notes  that Article  20.B.2.i.  of  the 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual which states that “[e]nlisted members involved in a third alcohol 
incident shall be processed for separation from the Service.”   Because the applicant had over 8 
years  of  military  service,  he  was  entitled  to  an  ASB  hearing  and  representation  by  a  military 
lawyer.    The ASB  reviewed  all  of  the  evidence,  including  medical  evidence  of  the  applicant’s 
depression and his work history and still voted to recommend his separation for the good of the 
Service.  The Board will not substitute its judgment for that of the ASB or CGPC in the absence 
of evidence that the ASB committed a prejudicial substantive or procedural error.  The applicant 
has failed to prove such an error in this case. 
 

6.   The  Board  notes,  as  the  applicant  argued,  that  discharging  him  five  months  short  of 
him  earning  a  20-year  retirement  seems  particularly  harsh,  especially  since  the  Coast  Guard 
suspected  that  the  applicant  was  abusing  alcohol  as  early  as  1999  and  was  aware  that  he  was 
alcohol-dependent  as  early  as  2001.    Yet,  the  Coast  Guard  tolerated  his  ups  and  downs  with 
alcohol-related  issues  until  2008,  when  it  began  separation  proceedings.    In  this  regard,  the 
applicant had his first alcohol incident in 2001 for driving under the influence, and as a result of 
that incident he was screened and diagnosed as being alcohol dependent, for which he received 
treatment. In 2003, as a result of a command directed screening, the applicant was diagnosed as 
not  being  alcohol-abusive,  although  his  2001  alcohol-dependency  was  noted.      In  2004,  the 
applicant’s command discovered that he had a DUI in 2002, which was treated as the applicant’s 
second  alcohol  incident.   As  a  result  of  this  incident,  the  applicant  was  screened  at  the  Naval 
Health Care New England facility.  In a September 14, 2004 letter, the CO of that facility advised 
the  Coast  Guard  to  process  the  applicant  for  separation  as  a  treatment  failure  because  the 
applicant had little regard for the Coast Guard’s alcohol policy, because he would resist treatment 
that was not  of his choosing, and  because  his  potential for further useful  service and prognosis 
for avoiding further use of alcohol was not encouraging.  However, the Coast Guard decided to 
retain  the  applicant  citing  his  then-subsequently-successful  alcohol  treatment  and  good  work 
performance.    Moreover,  the  applicant  was  screened  for  alcohol  abuse  on  October  2,  2007, 
before  the  third  alcohol  incident.    The  CO  of  the  facility  where  the  applicant  was  screened 
informed  the  applicant’s  CO  that  the  applicant  met  the  criteria  for  placement  in  an  inpatient 
treatment program due to high risk of relapse and that he was to abstain from alcohol from that 
point  through  the  completion  of  the  treatment  program.    Prior  to  receiving  treatment,  the 
applicant  committed  his  third  alcohol  incident  on  October  17,  2007,  by  not  reporting  to  work 
apparently due to alcohol consumption.   During this period from 2001 to 2008, the Coast Guard 
was  also  aware,  as  early  as  2001  that  the  applicant  had  problems  reporting  to  work  on  time 
presumably because of alcohol consumption.  Two page 7s dated March 21, 2001 and November 
5, 2002 document that the applicant was absent from work without permission on at least 3 days 
on  one  occasion.    On April  10,  2006,  he  was  placed  on  performance  probation  because  of  his 
failure to report to work on time on several occasions.  There was testimony before the ASB and 
in  a  medical  note  that  the  applicant  was  not  reporting  to  work  or  to  his  medical  appointments 
when  he  was  scheduled  to  do  so.    In  light  of  the  applicant’s  history  of  alcohol  abuse,  as 

 

 

discussed, and the Coast  Guard’s knowledge of it  for approximately 8  years, it  is  arguable that 
the  Coast  Guard  should  have  acted  sooner  to  separate  the  applicant  instead  of  waiting  until  he 
was only 5 months away from earning a 20-year retirement.     

 
On  the  other  hand,  as  the  Coast  Guard  argued,  despite  its  forbearance,  the  applicant 
continued  to  abuse  alcohol.    He  was  treated  for  alcohol-dependence  on  at  least  two  occasions 
prior to his October 17, 2007 incident. Unfortunately, the applicant committed his third alcohol 
incident  in  his  18th  year  of service and the Personnel  Manual  requires processing for discharge 
upon committing a third alcohol incident. The ASB found that it was in the best interest of the 
service to separate the applicant, while noting  his above-average work history.  Apparently, the 
Coast Guard determined that the applicant’s problems with alcohol and the impact his behavior 
had on his unit outweighed the services he could provide as a SK.    Even if the Coast Guard had 
acted  earlier  to  approve  the  ASB,  there  is  no  indication  that  the  applicant  would  have  been 
retained after committing his third alcohol incident.  The applicant has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to persuade the Board that the Coast Guard committed an injustice in discharging him 
with over 19 years of active duty.   

 
7.    In  light  of  the  above  findings,  the  Board  concludes  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to 

prove an error or injustice with regard to his discharge from the Coast Guard.   

 
8.  While the Board finds the applicant’s discharge was proper, certain entries on his DD 
214  should  be  modified  as  a  matter  of  equity.    The  applicant’s  DD  214  shows  that  he  was 
discharged from the Coast Guard under Article 12.B.12 (convenience of the Government) of the 
Personnel Manual, with an honorable discharge due to “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure,”  with a 
GPD  separation  code  (which  corresponds  with  an  involuntary  discharge  under Article  12.B.16. 
that  was  an  approved  recommendation  of  a  board  when  a  member  failed  through  inability  or 
refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete a treatment program for alcohol 
rehabilitation), and a RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code.   The applicant has stated 
that having the “unsuitability title on [his] DD 214” has made it hard for him to find a job.  There 
is an inconsistency on the DD 214.  Although the applicant was processed and discharged under 
Article  12.B.16.  (unsuitability)  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  separation  authority  listed  on  the 
DD  214  is  12.B.12  (convenience  of  the  government)  a  more  favorable  separation  authority.  
Instead of changing the separation authority to Article 12.B.16. on the DD 214, the Board finds 
that the narrative reason should be changed to “condition, not a disability” under Article 12.B.12.  
Alcoholism  is  a  disease  “characterized  by  repetitive,  compulsive  ingestion  of  alcohol  which 
interferes  with  the  user’s  health,  safety,  and  job  performance  .  .  .”  Article  20.A.2.c.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.    This  definition  recognizes  the  difficulty  of  remaining  sober  for  some 
alcoholics.    Since  the  applicant  struggled  from  alcoholism  for  almost  8  years  while  still 
providing average to above average work performance to the Coast Guard, the Board finds that 
as a matter of equity under this particular set of circumstances, the narrative reason for discharge 
on the applicant’s DD 214 should be changed from “alcohol rehabilitation failure” to “condition, 
not a disability” under Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual, and the separation code should 
be changed to GFV (“condition, not a disability”). The change may ease the applicant’s problem 
with  finding  civilian  employment.  The  Board  will  not  change  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code 
because  the  applicant  has  a  long  history  of  problems  with  alcohol,  which  interfered  with  the 
readiness of his unit and set a poor example for junior personnel.      

 

 

 
9.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  retirement  from  the  Coast  Guard  should  be 
denied.  However, the Board will direct that the applicant’s DD 214 be corrected as discussed in 
Finding 8.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military  record  is  denied,  except  that  the  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  him  a  new  DD  214  with  the 
following corrections made (not by hand and not by issuing a DD 215): 

ORDER 

 

 

  Block 26 shall be changed to GFV; and 

 

  Block 28 shall be changed to “condition, not a disability.” 

 

  The following sentence  shall be added to  block  18:   “Action taken pursuant  to  order of 

BCMR.” 
 

 
 

 
 

No other relief is granted.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Reid Alan Cox 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier