DRB 2015-029 Applicable Policy Military Separations Manual: 1.B.17 (previously Personnel Manual COMDTINST M1000.4 ART.1-C-5), prescribes standards for processing individuals for Unsatisfactory Performance. Summary of Service/Disciplinary Action A. Age at enlistment in USCG: 20 B. Periods of unauthorized absences: None C. Civil actions: None D. Military Actions: a. Non Judicial Punishment: i. 6/8/2009 1. Article 92 Failure to Obey Order or Regulation 2. Article 134 Disorders and Neglects to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline in the Armed Forces ii. 4/30/2005 1. ART 134: False Pretenses: improper use of the INMARSAT telephone. b. Court Martial: None F. Highest rating achieved: IS2 G. ASVAB AFQT: 45 H. Active service completed: 14 years, 6 months, 28 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 “Requesting line 28 of my DD-214 change to ‘Reduction in Force or Non-Retention of Active Duty.’ My term of Active Duty was cut short as a result of the new Coast Guard promotion standards designed to reduce Active Duty personnel.” Board’s Discussion and Conclusion DISCUSSION: The applicant was discharged for Unsatisfactory Performance in early 2014. The applicant was afforded an Administrative Separation Board after the command notified the applicant of the intent to discharge in the summer of 2013. Six months prior to that the applicant had been notified that the unsatisfactory performance must improve; Up-to the discharge effective date, the applicant had received 11 ‘not recommended for advancement’ evaluations dating back to 2004 (with the last 4 evaluations showing the same lack of performance and behavior problems occurring at each of the 4 different duty assignments along the way). And, prior to the USCG service, the applicant was a member of the USMC for over 4 years. The Board concludes that the applicant was given many opportunities to follow the standard orders and regulations expected of a mid-level petty officer; And, the applicant was awarded NJP on two occasions to correct his performance and behavior. The applicant was also afforded an investigation on a hostile work environment allegation (all claims unfounded) prior to the formal Administrative Separation Board. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The applicant has not presented any new evidence or error for relief on the discharge issued. RECOMMENDATION: The Board members thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s record of service and all available documentation. The Board deemed that the applicant’s character of service, reason for separation, and reenlistment code are appropriate and should not be changed. The applicant has not substantiated any error or inequity. Propriety: Discharge was proper. Equity: Discharge was equitable. Board Conclusion: The Board voted 5-0 to recommend no relief.