UNITED STATES COAST GUARD DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
Docket #: 2018-040 

Discharge Issued 
Character: Honorable 
Narrative Reason: Unacceptable Conduct 
SPD/RE Code: JNC / RE4 

Authority of Discharge: COMDTINST M1000.4 Art 1.B.15 

Date of Separation: 5/11/2015 

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 discharged for Unsuitability after serving a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 
6 days on active duty. The Board thoroughly reviewed all documentation including the applicant's 
statement. The applicant's Character of Service is Honorable and the separation authority listed on the 
DD-214 is COMDTINST M1000.4 Article 1.B.15. The corresponding SPD code is JNC which prescribes a reentry code of RE4. 

The former member was discharged for unsuitability (inaptitude) after receiving ten negative CG-3307’s 
in less than a nine-month period, documenting subpar performance and failure to meet standards. The 
applicant’s command noted that the former member received nearly continuous counseling over an 8month 
period without improvement. The Command noted that the applicant’s inaptitude was not the 
result of an isolated incident but rather a culmination of events that included numerous counseling 
sessions and negative CG-3307’s. The Command also noted that the applicant was placed on 
performance probation and was provided with a plan to correct the pattern of deficiencies. The 
Command stated that after 5 months, the applicant showed no tangible improvement and instead 
regressed in their qualifications. The applicant was not recommended for the Commandant’s Second 
Chance Program. 
The former member is requesting relief to their reentry code in order to reenlist in the military. The 
applicant states they received an Honorable discharge but an RE4. The applicant claims their conduct 
was not unacceptable during their time in service. The applicant states they were honored to serve their 
country and would like an upgrade so they may continue to do so. 
The Board reviewed and discussed the applicant’s service record claim that they should have received a 
different RE code for an honorable discharge. The applicant was separated in accordance with 
COMDTINST M1000.4 Article 1.B.15 which details the discharge process for members released for 
unsuitability by reason of inaptitude. Inaptitude applies to members described as unfit due to lack of 
general adaptability, want or readiness of skill, clumsiness, or inability to learn. As such, the applicant’s 
discharge was proper as illustrated by the ten negative CG-3307’s documenting an inability to learn and 
a lack of want or readiness of skill. 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook lists an SPD code of JNC for members discharged 
for unsuitability. The SPD Handbook prescribes an RE4 for member’s discharged under JNC. This makes the applicant’s
RE4 the proper RE code for this discharge and therefore makes the applicant’s claims of 
an improper RE code unsubstantiated. 
The Board finds no error of fact, law, discretion, or policy in this discharge. There have been no relevant 
policy changes since the date of discharge that are unique to this case. The discharge of the applicant 
was justified and consistent with the standards of discipline. The Board finds no issues concerning the 
propriety or equity of the discharge. 
the applicant’s RE4 the proper RE code for this discharge and therefore makes the applicant’s claims of 
an improper RE code unsubstantiated. 
The Board finds no error of fact, law, discretion, or policy in this discharge. There have been no relevant 
policy changes since the date of discharge that are unique to this case. The discharge of the applicant 
was justified and consistent with the standards of discipline. The Board finds no issues concerning the 
propriety or equity of 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 
RE code is 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.