DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
DRB DOCKET 2016-067

NAME
E7
CURRENT DD-214
Honorable, COMDTINST M1000.4 Art. 1.B.11, KBK, RE4, Completion of
Required Active Service
RELIEF REQUESTED
Upgrade to Re-Entry Code
RELIEF GRANTED
BY DRB
RE3
ADMIN
CORRECTIONS
None

TIS
12 yrs, 03 months, 27 days
Policy Implications
None

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant was discharged due to Completion of Required Active Service in April 2016. The Applicant 
telephonically appeared before the Board. After a brief introduction, the Board President stated the roles and 
responsibilities of the Coast Guard Discharge Review Board (DRB). The Applicant was sworn-in and made a 
statement. During the discussion, The Applicant adamantly stated that they were erroneously discharged from the 
Coast Guard (in their application to the DRB, they stated that the re-entry code of RE4 was given without approval 
from CG PSC (EPM)). They continued to confer that their leadership/command at the unit made it clear that they 
would not be allowed to stay in the Coast Guard by not allowing them to re-enlist. The Members of the Board asked 
the Applicant if they were afforded reenlistment counseling and the Applicant’s answer was no because they were 
made to believe that they were not going to reenlist. In their written statement to the DRB, The Applicant had 
requested numerous investigations, including prejudice and abuse of discretions by the Command.

The Applicant was placed on performance probation in September 2015. According to Administrative Remarks 
Entry - CG 3307, the reasons for this probationary status included: dereliction of duties as the Communications 
Center Supervisor, failure to provide junior members with leadership and direction, failure to qualify as an 
Operations Unit Controller within a prescribed timeframe, and as recommended by the Chiefs Council. During 
their verbal testimony to the Board, The Applicant stated that they received an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) 
in December 2015 for dereliction of duty.

The Board Members reviewed the totality of The Applicant’s service record and their evaluations, which display 
that they were a high performer.

The Board finds no issues with propriety in this case.

On the equity standard, the Board referred to ALCOAST 125/10 to make a recommendation. The Board notes most 
or all separations occurring after said ALCOAST to the present only issue a RE1 or RE3 Reentry Code. RE3 is 
prescribed for cases when the Commanding Officer does not recommend member for reenlistment.

Propriety:	Discharge was proper.
Equity:	Discharge was not equitable.
Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant for Human Resources: Concur with the Board to provide 
the following relief based on policy issued in ALCOAST 125/10: Upgrade to Reentry Code from RE4 to RE3.