DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRB DOCKET 2014-025
TIS 5 yrs, 11 months, 17 days
Policy Implications | None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant was discharged for Misconduct due to commission of a serious offense in 2013. The applicant’s
complete Personnel Data Record and Separation Package were available for the Board to review.
In the Fall of 2011, the applicant was counseled on having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate who
was also married. The applicant was also recently married to another Petty officer at the same command and
they had a young child together. In late 2012, the applicant allegedly forced themselves into the residence of the
subordinate and pointed a gun at the subordinate’s legally-separated spouse who was holding what was
discovered as a child resulting from the prohibited and inappropriate relationship. The police were contacted
during these events and the applicant was subsequently arrested at a separate location after departing the .
subordinate’s residence.
Thereafter, the command moved on to start separation proceedings in the Spring of 2013 after the applicant
received NJP two months prior. The applicant was notified of the intent to discharge, and the applicant was
advised of the rights to an attorney. The applicant made a statement and objected to discharge.
No new evidence was provided to refute the offenses that led to the discharge. The Board does note that a
General Discharge was issued in Block 24 of the applicant’s DD-214. Per previous policy issued in ALCOAST
562/08, a General discharge is no longer considered an official character of service. Therefore, the board
recommends a partial upgrade to an Under Honorable Conditions character of service.
Propriety: Discharge was proper.
Equity: Discharge was equitable.
Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: Partial relief is granted to the
applicant’s Character of Service to Under Honorable Conditions based on ALCOAST 562/08. All other items
stand as issued.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 059
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Therefore, based on the post-separation policy, the Board recommends that the character of service be amended to Under Honorable Conditions. In accordance with ALCOAST 562/08, the character of service be amended to Under Honorable Conditions based on the post- separation policy.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 041
The applicant had a positive urinalysis result for methamphetamines in the late summer of 2005. The Board notes a General Discharge was issued. Therefore, the board recommends a partial upgrade to an Under Honorable Conditions character of service.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 075
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-075 General, COMDTINST 1000.6A 12-B-18, JKK, Misconduct, RE4 Honorable Admin correction based on post-policy from ALCOAST 562/08 Under Honorable Conditions TIS 2 yrs, 8 months, 25 days Policy Implications _| None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Misconduct due to Involvement with Drugs. Coast Guard policy prescribes no higher than a General, Under Honorable Conditions character of service for individuals separated as a result...
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 038
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Therefore, based on the post-separation policy, the Board recommends that the character of service be amended to Under Honorable Conditions. Yet, in accordance with ALCOAST 562/08, the Board does recommend that the character of service be amended to Under Honorable Conditions based on the post-separation policy.
CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 002
Pursuant to policy, the applicant was recommended for Discharge due to a drug incident. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Per post policy noted in ALCOAST 562/08, a General discharge is no longer considered an official character of service.
CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 031
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Coast Guard policy prescribes no higher than a General, Under Honorable Conditions character of service for individuals separated as a result of violating the Coast Guard’s drug policy. The General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge is equitable.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 027
The Majority board recommends partial relief on the applicant’s Character of Service, based on the post-policy issued in ALCOAST 562/08. And, ALCOAST 254/05 on May 12, 2005 stated the following: “The Coast Guard may resume Anthrax vaccinations for personnel assigned to designated commands but only under the condition that personnel scheduled to receive the Anthrax vaccination may ACCEPT or REFUSE the vaccination. Board Conclusion: The Majority Board (3-2) recommends no relief to the...
CG | DRB | 2012 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2012 054
The applicant received punishment that was no higher than a Summary Court Martial with one guilty plea on the two charges that occurred. The applicant’s committed offense warrants no higher than an Under Honorable Conditions character of service. The General discharge was issued correctly at the time of separation in 2005.
CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 047
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The Board endorses an administrative change to amend the Character of Service to Under Honorable Conditions based on the issuance of ALCOAST 562/08. Coast Guard policy prescribes no higher than a General Discharge, with an Under Honorable Conditions character of service for individuals separated as a result of violating the Coast Guard’s drug policy.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 043
The applicant had a positive urinalysis result for methamphetamines in 2000. Normally, those separated for Involvement with Drugs will receive a General discharge with a Character of Service of Under Honorable Conditions (by way of post policy noted in ALCOAST 562/08). The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case.