UNITED STATES COAST GUARD DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD Docket #: 2018-046 
Discharge Issued Character: Honorable Narrative Reason: Pattern of Misconduct SPD/RE Code: JKA/RE4 
Authority of Discharge: COMDTINST Ml000.4 Art. 1.B.17 
Date of Separation: 3/12/2004 
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: 
The Applicant appeared before the Board telephonically. After a brief introduction, the Board President confirmed with the Applicant that they are requesting to upgrade their Re-enlistment code on the DD Form 214 (block 27) from RE-4 to RE-1.The Applicant indicated that they wished to give a sworn statement. The Applicant was sworn in by the Board Recorder. 
The Applicant began their statement and indicated that they received several Non Judicial punishments for their Conduct. The applicant has been denied employment because of the "Pattern of Misconduct on their DD-214. The applicant believes they were given the incorrect Re-code because they were young and immature. The former member conclude their statement. 
The board asked two questions. 
1) How many NJPs did you received? Former members answer: Two. One was for falling asleep on watch and the other was for an inappropriate relationship with another member at the same unit. 
2) How long of a time frame was between your two NJPs? The former members answer: Not sure but somewhere around 7 to 9 months apart. 
This portion of the board ended and the Applicant's phone line was disconnected. 
The Board discussed the application and documentation provide by the former member and the Coast Guard policy and its relation to this case. The board discussed the age and immaturity of the former member. The Board discussed the lack of any evidence of impropriety or inequity presented by the Applicant. The board agreed there was no equity issue with the discharge. 
RECOMMENDATION: 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: recommend no relief. 
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.