DRB 2015-016 Applicable Policy Military Separations Manual: 1.B.17 prescribes standards for processing individuals for Separation for Miscellaneous/General Reasons. Summary of Service/Disciplinary Action A. Age at enlistment in USCG: 18 B. Periods of unauthorized absences: None C. Civil actions: None D. Military Actions: a. Non Judicial Punishment: None b. Court Martial: None E. Highest rating achieved: SN F. ASVAB AFQT: 62 G. Active service completed: 1 year, 8 months, 17 days Applicant’s Issues and Documentation Documentation: In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered: A. DD Form 293 B. Supporting Documentation Issues: The applicant states “I was erroneously denied continued service under the Coast Guard’s “Second Chance” program for those who had consumed alcohol or had alcohol-related incidents. This was due to sexual discrimination and retaliation. Under the totality of the evidence, the failure to grant my request for continued service under the Second Chance program was unjust.” (See additional information in applicant statement) Board’s Discussion and Deliberations: DISCUSSION: The applicant was discharged for Separation For Miscellaneous/General Reasons in April 2013. After 20 months in service, the applicant had two underage alcohol incidents. Two calendar years forward, the applicant appeared in person before the Board to seek relief for reentry into military service. The following is a timeline to recap the applicant’s period of service: August 2011: Entered US Coast Guard October 2011: Completed Recruit Training. Reported to Station Chetco River. January 2012: Received satisfactory evaluation report. May 2012: Applicant was sexually harassed by a supervisor. Sexual harassment is not reported to command until December 14, 2012. July 2012: Counseled on inability to qualify as a crewman after 10 months. A modified training schedule is created and tailored to assist the remedial instruction process. August 2012: Applicant receives an underage drinking incident. The clinic clears the applicant with a no dependency diagnosis. A Disciplinary evaluation is completed in the service record. December 13, 2012: Applicant receives formal correspondence to document a second alcohol incident. The applicant had two more underage drinking incidents in November 2012, one of which was during a duty recall status. Due to the close proximity of the incidents, the command issued on 1 negative administrative entry and evaluation; the applicant was again cleared by the clinic with a no dependency diagnosis. The command notifies the applicant of the intent to discharge. December 14, 2012: Applicant formally reports sexual harassment actions by supervisor back in May 2012. January 2013: Applicant makes written statement to the Discharge Authority at Personnel Service Center, Enlisted Personnel Management (EPM). District Thirteen commander considers Second Chance Program but deems the applicant is unsuitable for continued military service. April 2013: EPM approves Discharge recommendation with an Honorable ‘character of service’ and a RE-3 reentry code. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. August 2013: Applicant files a formal complaint of discrimination for the period of service while at Station Chetco River. October- December 2013: Investigation performed with sworn statements recorded by several crew members, peers, and superiors. December 2013: Report of Investigation completed by contractors (Resolution Services, LLC) under Department of Homeland Security (DHS). February 2014: Under Agency case No: HS-USCG-01557-2013, the Chief of Civil Rights Operations for the US Coast Guard determined and concluded that the Complainant (and now Board applicant) has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence to be subjected to harassment or reprisal. A notice is given to show the right to appeal the decision with DHS, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. DELIBERATION: The Board notes and commends the applicant’s testimony and post-service efforts as an Emergency Medical Technician. The Board has also carefully considered the Reentry code differences in each Discharge recommendation: Station recommendation: RE-4 Air Station North Bend: Concurs with RE-4 District Thirteen: recommends RE-1 Personnel Service Center, Enlisted Personnel Management: Approves RE-3 reentry code to indicate the Discharge is issued with a disqualifying factor. Hence, the applicant is not fully eligible to reenlist, but is also not barred from reentry into the service. The Board finds that the Discharge issued meets the propriety and equity standards under Title 10 United States Code, Section 1553 and Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51. The aforementioned Report of Investigation provided in the post-service time further supports that the discrimination claim did not show irregularity in the conduct of this case’s governmental affairs. Based on the case evidence, the Board will not absolve the aforesaid disqualifying factor. 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. The RE3 code may be waived based upon the policies and needs of the gaining Service. RECOMMENDATION: The Board members thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s record of service and all available documentation2. The Board deemed that the applicant’s character of service, reason for separation, and reenlistment code are appropriate and should not be changed. Propriety: Discharge was proper. Equity: Discharge was equitable. Board Conclusion: The Board voted 5-0 for the Discharge to stand as issued.