Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 033
Original file (2014 033.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRB DOCKET 2014-033

 

NAME E3
CURRENT DD-214 Under Honorable Conditions, CGPSC-EPM, JKQ, Misconduct, RE4
RELIEF REQUESTED | Honorable

RELIEF GRANTED Honorable, JND SPD code, Separation for Miscellaneous/General Reasons
BY DRB

ADMIN None
CORRECTIONS

 

 

TIS 2 yrs, 3 months, 6 days
Policy Implications __| None

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant was discharged for Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense in 2013. In the Fall of
2012, the applicant was accompanied by a few other Coast Guard personnel from a neighboring unit in the area.
After becoming intoxicated, the applicant entered a closed restaurant with the others and took food and
merchandise. In early 2013, the applicant’s command processed the applicant for Discharge due to the pending
charge of Burglary, a class ‘C’ felony offense. The command recommended the applicant for an Honorable

Discharge. The Sector, District, and epm did not concur with the command as a General, Under Honorable
Conditions Discharge was endorsed and approved.

The applicant was notified of the intent to discharge, and the applicant was advised of the rights to an attorney.
The applicant provided a statement from an attorney. The applicant did object to the discharge.

Majority Recommendation by the Board (by vote of 4-1): The applicant had no history of negative performance
or behavior in the service record. The applicant does not deny the wrong-doing in partaking in the removal of
items from the closed establishment, rather the applicant admits to the lapse in judgment in believing to be in
the good company of other servicemen who were senior to the applicant in experience and age. The applicant’s
command did endorse an Honorable Discharge due to the his work efforts demonstrated by way of 557
underway hours and a certification as a Buoy Deck supervisor not normally achieved by a non-rate.

The Board acknowledges that most or all of the offenses were dismissed in the summer of 2013 after the
applicant was already Discharged from the service. The offense was finalized and adjudicated down to a Class
‘D’ misdemeanor. This alone may have led to NJP proceedings, but would have not been grounds for Discharge
if the court had ruled prior to the effective discharge date. The Board notes that the applicant has quickly

moved on in the post-service time as a sophomore enrolled at a large University with a 3.0 grade point average.
The Board recommends a partial upgrade to an Honorable Discharge for Miscellaneous/General Reasons in that
the one-time mistake that resulted in Commission of Serious Offense was not fully realized at the time of
Discharge. A reentry code of RE-4 shall remain as issued.

Minority Recommendation by the Board(by vote of 1-4): The applicant and the supporting attorney’s

testimony paint the picture of a naive individual that was negatively influenced by older and more experienced
work accomplices that lured the applicant into an unknowing crime. The Board finds that the other individuals
involved were Discharged for the same reasons and conditions as the applicant. The Minority Board finds no
issues with propriety or equity in this case. Issuance of a different “Character of Service’ to the less experienced
person of the theft group not only presents direct inequities to all involved, but suggests that young:
individuals will receive greater reprieve for the same crimes. No relief. Stand as issued.

Propriety: Discharge was proper.
Equity: Discharge was NOT equitable.

Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: Concur with the Majority Board.
Relief is granted as follows:

 

D-214 Item Board Decision
24. Discharge Honorable

25. Authority COMDTINST
M1000.4, Art 1.B.15
26. Separation Code

27. Re-entry Code
28. Narrative Reason | Separation for

Miscellaneous/General
Reasons

Similar Decisions

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 055

    Original file (2013 055.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following provides an outline of the approval process and the notable findings: Applicant’s command: Made separation notification after just 3 months on performance probation. The current application requests to remove the Narrative Reason (NR) as ‘Unacceptable Conduct’, and to amend it to a Voluntary Separation that is in alignment with SPD code KND with an NR of Separation for Miscellaneous/General Reasons. EPM separation approval (summary): In the summer of 2013, the Discharge was...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 027

    Original file (2013 027.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 051

    Original file (2013 051.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECCEN followed up in late 2006 to indicate that no improvement had been made to eliminate the sizable debt that the applicant had created over a significant amount of time. Additionally, the command formally counseled applicant on the need to change their rating for retention in the service. Discharge: No change | 25.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 060

    Original file (2013 060.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant had a positive urinalysis result during a random testing in late 2012. The applicant’s had 10 years of service which afforded the right to an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) that occurred in the Spring of 2013. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case.

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 009

    Original file (2014 009.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received an RE-4 code that bars her from future reentry into military service. A recommendation of an RE-3H is the appropriate reenlistment code to indicate that her request to voluntary separate was due to family hardship. An RE3 reentry code is not an affirmative recommendation for reenlistment, rather it represents that the applicant is not recommended for reenlistment due to a disqualifying factor.

  • CG | DRB | 2012 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2012 072

    Original file (2012 072.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This was the result of a voluntary SILO request made in 2009, by the applicant, due to an overwhelming financial situation in which relocation would have adversely affected their family. In the Fall of 2009, just 8 weeks prior to his request to SILO, the applicant was taken to Summary Court-Martial (SCM) for an inappropriate relationship onboard a USGC cutter. The board recommends that applicant’s SPD code be changed to KND with the narrative reason as: ‘Separation for...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 032

    Original file (2013 032.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In early 2012, the applicant’s command initiated Discharge proceedings based on the two alcohol incidents. Furthermore, the applicant mentions no details or mitigating factors about the Felony Battery with no contest plea. Prior to epm’s final approval, the Admiral serving as the local Discharge authority fully endorsed the Discharge due to commission of a serious offense with a General, Under Honorable Conditions character of service.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 023

    Original file (2013 023.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1.B.20, KFS, Triable by Court Martial, RE4 RELIEF REQUESTED BY DRB CORRECTIONS | TIS Policy Implications 4 yrs, 9 months, 16 days None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Triable By Court Martial due to be being an accessory in theft (after the fact), disobeying a direct order, and procuring a prostitute. The applicant requested to be separated ‘For the Good of the Service’ in lieu of the Court martial (CM) proceedings and punishment. Therefore, the board by a majority vote...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 078

    Original file (2013 078.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-078 NAME CURRENT DD-214 Under Honorable Conditions, COMDTINST M1000.4 ART 1.B.17, JKA, Pattern of Misconduct, RE4 a BY DRB CORRECTIONS TIS 3 yrs, 3 months, 18 days Policy Implications _| None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Pattern Of Misconduct due to two Non-Judicial punishments within a 2 year period. Thereafter, the SPO issued an Under Honorable Conditions character of Service. Based on the final approval made by EPM, the...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 034

    Original file (2013 034.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant made the request for the separation shortly after. Aside from the administrative error, the Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: Due to the administrative error made, a Honorable Discharge will be issued as directed by PSC (epm).