UNITED STATES COAST GUARD DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
Docket #: 2017-051 

Discharge Issued 
Character: Under Honorable Conditions (General) 
Narrative Reason: Misconduct 
SPD/RE Code: JKQ / RE4 

Authority of Discharge: COMDTINST M1000.6 Art 2.B.18 

Date of Separation: 8/8/2016 

DRB Decision 
Character: No Change 
Narrative Reason: No Change 
SPD/RE Code: No Change / No Change 

New Authority: No Change 

Discharge Review Board Discussion and Decision: 

DISCUSSION: The applicant was separated due to Misconduct. 
While attending training, the applicant failed to report for watch. The watch-stander went to applicant’s 
room to wake them up. The watch-stander knocked on the door and upon entering the room, the 
watch-stander discovered the applicant was in the same rack with another trainee The next morning the 
watch-stander reported their findings to the Officer of the Day and an investigation was initiated. 
During the investigation, the applicant initially denied being involved in anything more than a close 
relationship but eventually admitted to having a romantic relationship with another trainee. The other 
trainee also admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with the applicant. 
The Board Members discussed how the admitted inappropriate relationship is strictly prohibited in 
accordance with the Discipline and Conduct, COMDTINST M1600.2 and other relevant training 
regulations. The service records display that upon arriving to the training facility, the applicant was 
specifically counseled on the Coast Guard’s interpersonal relationship policies and the consequences if 
the polices were not strictly adhered to. 
The investigation concluded the applicant violated Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) and 
Article 107 (false statements) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Based on the preponderance of 
the evidence, the applicant did commit a serious offense. 
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. 
The applicant was notified of the intent to discharge, and advised of their rights to an attorney, and 
made a statement on their behalf. The applicant did object to the discharge. 

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. 


2 In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is 
substantial credible evidence (to include evidence submitted by the Applicant) to rebut the presumption.