Members of the Board,

1. Considering the Coast Guard’s four years of malfeasance, mendacity, intransigence, obfuscation and incompetence… the distortions, prevarications, and glaring omissions of their Advisory Opinion (AO) are not surprising.  The AO regurgitated false, defamatory allegations, and previously discredited hearsay “evidence” related to my adverse, involuntary administrative separation and uncharacterized discharge.  The Coast Guard’s AO contained no evidentiary revelations, or even a convincing argument that my unjustified, improper separation was legitimate.  Nothing in the AO countered the documentation I cited or provided in my Application to prove that my separation, given in the complete absence of due process, with an Entry-Level Uncharacterized Discharge, was unjustified, inappropriate, improper, inequitable and unconstitutional. 

2. The AO’s many factual errors demonstrated the inconsequence the Coast Guard has assigned to my case.  The author simply restated the Coast Guard’s factually-unfounded, ethically dubious, and legally problematic position without confirming its veracity or legitimacy.  The AO considered the two key issues detailed in my Application – unjustified separation and lack of a discharge – but did not offer an opinion on, nor contest large portions of my Application, passively signaling the Coast Guard’s concurrence.  Additionally, the AO did not reference, enclose or dispute 85% of the evidentiary exhibits referenced in my BCMR Application, thus acknowledging the validity of my references to them. 

3. Although the Coast Guard’s AO “officially” recognized the impropriety and inequity of my Uncharacterized Discharge and recommended that it be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge, they did so without addressing the probable UCMJ-defined crime committed in failing to characterize my service when I was discharged, or the subsequent cover-up. Instead, the AO disputed that I was unjustly separated and defended the USCG assertion that in the absence of due process and without proof of wrongdoing, it was completely proper for me to be hobbled for life by a derogatory military discharge with the defamatory words “misconduct” and “fraudulent” prominently displayed.  

4. While  I welcomed the AO’s “at long last” admission of the Coast Guard’s “error”, it opened a Pandora’s Box of ethical and regulatory issues regarding my DRB’s denial recommendation, RADM Nunan’s (CG-1 / HR) rubber-stamp of their recommendation, RADM Jones’s (CG-1) order to “ghost” me, etcetera, and the four-year cover-up orchestrated by CG-1 and complicit Coast Guard offices.

5. Incredibly, Personnel Service Center’s (PSC) “Program Input” claimed that “it is not clear why” I was awarded “an Entry-Level Uncharacterized Discharge when no compelling circumstances appeared to exist.”  This specious “Well, I have no idea how that happened” phrasing from PSC came after four years and my Sisyphean effort to force them to admit their error.  An “error” that was likely intentional, and which the Coast Guard made no effort to correct, even though any one of eight flag officers serving in three distinct billets – over four years – had the authority and the opportunity to do so.  Considering that I previously answered PSC’s “why” in my Application, and that acting PSC, CAPT Dash could have called or e-mailed my former Commanding Officer at any time, his statement was disingenuous and implies corporate “consciousness of guilt”.

6. The AO ignored key facts in my case detailed in my BCMR Application that the USCG has flagrantly and irresponsibly disregarded or denied since April, 2019.  Unacknowledged by the AO, my BCMR Application not only proved that my entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge was unquestionably both improper and inequitable, it also established that:

  §  The Coast Guard failed to prove that I fraudulently enlisted.  Thus, their professed justification for my adverse, involuntary administrative separation was invalid.

  §  The Coast Guard failed to administer my adverse, involuntarily administrative separation in accordance with myriad requirements stated in the USCG Military Separations manual.

  §  USCG senior officers knowingly circumvented written USCG regulations and the UCMJ to intentionally punish me with an unauthorized entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge.

  §  My punishing Uncharacterized Discharge was unconstitutional as it constituted extrajudicial punishment, and was disproportionate to the unproven, unadjudicated offense.

  §  USCG flag officers tolerated their subordinates’ egregious misconduct, and oversaw a cover-up of my improper separation and Uncharacterized Discharge focused on mitigating the risk of litigation and upholding the corporate fiction of the infallibility of Coast Guard commanding officers.

Unjustified and Defamatory Adverse, Involuntary Administrative Separation

Administrative Discipline, Military Law or Criminal Justice?

1. The “due process” fundamental to Administrative Discipline, Military Law, and Criminal Justice share two requirements:  The right to notice, and the right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal.  

            a. My Commanding Officer functioned as the prosecutor in my case.  In the wholly administrative process he purposefully chose to effect my discharge, he also functioned as the judge.  Not surprisingly, he rapidly “convicted” me of a violating an ambiguously written USCG regulation.  Subsequently, in concert with PSC, he “sentenced” me  to the loss of my livelihood, my uniforms, my enlistment bonus, and thousands of dollars in post-service benefits; and literally added insult to injury by defaming my character via the libelous wording of my Certificate of Discharge from Active Duty (DD-214).  

b. As this “accusation”, “conviction” and “punishment” were effected as administrative procecdures, there was no right to see the evidence against me, to detailed counsel, nor to a fair and just hearing by an impartial judge.  In the absence of due process, my punishing and defaming separation was unjust. In fact, my separation, my DRB Appeal, and the BCMR Application process have been conducted exclusively “administratively”; except for the notable use of Coast Guard Police Department (CGPD) and Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) law enforcement personnel to investigate false accusations of illicit drug use; and the subsequent employment of USCG JAG lawyers to attempt to justify and later defend the indefensible; which has been done again in the AO.  

2. As a 29-year-old former Coastguardsman and current college senior, I cannot comprehend how the United States Coast Guard was permitted to separate, punish and defame me,  based on a “criminal investigation” by Federal law enforcement agents, via an administrative procedure that provides for no due process.  I committed no crime, but was subject to unjustified invasive “law enforcement”, and punished via an uncharacterized discharge that intentionally circumvented written regulations … and justice.

Speaking of Law Enforcement…

1. In reference to the CGPD and CGIS Investigation noted above, the AO’s provision of three pages of selected excerpts from the CGIS Report of Investigation (ROI) is counter to both Federal law enforcement and CGIS written regulations:

  §  “Federal Regulations prohibit the disclosure of information contained in investigative and law enforcement records.” 

  §  “A copy of an ROI is never to be included in a member’s personnel records, Administrative Separation Package, packages submitted to the Board for Corrections of Military Records (BCMR) (sic), or similar administrative proceedings unless authorized in writing by Director, CGIS.”

a. Additionally, the Coast Guard – in direct violation of both U.S. Code and Federal Regulations – continues to withhold exculpatory evidence that would further establish the calculated impropriety of my separation and punitive aspects of my discharge for an unproven “crime”:

  §  CFR, Subchapter B, Part 52 – Board for Correction of Military Records of the Coast Guard, Subpart C, § §52.25 “Access to official records” states that I “shall have such access to official records or to any information pertaining to the applicant which is in the custody of the Coast Guard.” 

  §  10 USC Chapter 79 - Correction of Military Records  § 1556 – “Ex parte communications prohibited" states that “The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action… is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the agency or board... with an entity or person outside the agency or board that pertain directly to the applicant’s case or have a material effect on the applicant’s case.”

 b. My persecution is either legally or administrative founded.  As the wind blows on both sides of a tennis court, I expect the Board will rectify these legal kerfuffles “lawyer-to-lawyer” with the office of the Judge Advocate General (CG-094) before hearing my case. 

2. Although I have requested a full copy of the ROI on numerous occasions, through multiple channels, the Coast Guard, citing the same Federal and CGIS regulations cited above, refused to allow me to access the ROI.  Yet portions of this ROI have been provided to the BCMR, the DRB, the office of the Judge Advocate General and to a host of personnel within Human Resources (CG-1) and USCG Base, Elizabeth City – all without CGIS authorization.

a. Though I was allowed to briefly skim the ROI before I was summarily discharged, I have not been provided a copy, and have had no opportunity to actually review it or question its propriety.  Thus, I can neither confirm nor dispute its contents, a significant handicap that unjustly advantages the Coast Guard.  Therefore, in lieu of full access to the ROI, I am forced to consider it with the same confidence as “hearsay” – defined as:  “Information received from others that one cannot verify the accuracy of, or adequately substantiate”.

b. As the AO’s assertion of the propriety of my separation relied largely on this improperly disseminated CGIS ROI, both ethically and legally, the BCMR should either treat it as hearsay or ignore it altogether.  To restate my position:  I can’t confirm or dispute what I haven’t seen.  The intentional withholding of this and other significant evidentiary records demonstrates that USCG leaders were likely aware early on that two or more USCG officers had intentionally circumvented separation regulations; and serves as further evidence of the USCG’s “consciousness of guilt”. 

Not Legally Valid…

1. Despite their acquiescence to the inappropriateness of my Uncharacterized Discharge, the AO asserted that my adverse, involuntary administrative separation was justified due to “Misconduct” via a “Fraudulent Entry” into military service.  This charge is largely based on a single discrepancy between a four-word entry expanding on a hand-written and initialed response to a “Yes/No” question on a separate page of my enlistment application, and a verbal response I allegedly made during my CGIS interrogation.  Yet, despite the AO’s claim, I didn’t make the explanatory digital entry, sign or initial the entry or the page, and was not present when – per the date entered – my Recruiter made the entry. (His potential motivation is addressed below.) And, as I haven‘t been provided a certified transcript of my CGIS interrogation conducted over four years ago, I have no idea specifically what I said, but I do remember being extremely stressed and irritated after months of harassment by my unqualified temporary Divisiion Officer / Chief.

2. Although my misguided temporary Division Officer accused me of four distinct offenses in a search of a justification to separate me, I was never detained, arrested, charged, jailed, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced.  In a legitimate administrative separation, the due process of law embedded in a Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) proceeding would have ensured that all legal rights owed me were respected.  The AO did not address the complete absence of due process in my punishing, involuntary administrative separation. 

a. Rather, I was punished in an administrative process that denied me my rights under the law.  “When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.”  Due process requires an opportunity to be heard and a decision by an impartial “judge”.  I was afforded neither and thus unprotected from the near-absolute power given to a USCG Commanding Officer.

b. Regulatory reviews by CG-1 leadership, my DRB members, and Coast Guard lawyers charged with scrutinizing my separation, my Uncharacterized Discharge, and my Discharge Appeal were unconcerned with the lack, or legitimacy of evidence for the unproven charge of fraudulent entry for which I was separated, the improper manner in which my separation was effected, or the improper, inequitable entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge I was awarded.  An indolent disregard of their duties labeled these personnel as “duplicitous” in my Commanding Offierr’s unethical scheme.

3. Parenthetically, if I had secured the transactional efforts of a civilian lawyer prior to my separation, it is certain that I would have remained in the Coast Guard, but been demoted and transferred via a process colloquially known by USCG officers as “passing the trash”.  That I should be required to engage a lawyer to represent me in an administrative proceeding, and commit to an impossible financial bill to effectively purchase a reduction in rank/pay and a transfer, is outside the bounds of common sense, ethics and justice.  Yet, a demotion and transfer (at an estimated cost of $40,000 in legal fees and lost salary) would have been far superior to the punishing loss of my job, the GI Bill and other VA Benefits; and the years of administrative “water-boarding” to which I have been subjected.

4. Shockingly, in the well-documented environment of rampant cronyism that infects the USCG officer corps, the conspirators were aided in covering-up their purposeful malfeasance by USCG flag officers:

a. Initially at the direction of RDML Bouboulis (Director of Operational Logistics) and later RADM Nunan (Assistant Commandant for Human Resources – CG-1), the Coast Guard obfuscated for 20 months before effectively denying my pre-separation FOIA Request and subsequent post-separation FOIA Appeal for exculpatory evidence, including the CGIS ROI and phone and e-mail discussions regarding my separation’s Uncharacterized Discharge between my COr, CAPT Matadobra (EPM), and CDR Fahey (PSC Staff attorney).  In so doing, the USCG ignored FOIA law by delaying their partial and redundant response to my FOIA Request for three months, and then waited another 18 months to generate a complete denial of my FOIA Appeal for e-mails and other evidence of collusion.

 b. RADM Nunan (CG-1) tacitly approved two intentionally deceitful letters from the USCG Congressional and Governmental Affairs Staff to Senator Maria Cantwell (WA) in response to her inquiries regarding my fallacious separation’s Uncharacterized Discharge; and later rubber-stamped my DRB’s specious Appeal denial recommendation.

 c. After RADM Nunan’s reassignment, USCG HR personnel shunned me at the direction of RADM Jones (CG-1), under the threat of disciplinary consequences for those who dared communicate with me; a ban that remains in effect.

 d. Those decisions alone confirm RADMs Nunan and Jones fitting figureheads for a USCG directorate (CG-1) that wouldn’t admit to the laws it broke, the regulations it ignored, the corruption it abetted, the ethical standards it trashed, or the cover-up it executed.  Professionalism is about getting the separation and discharge right in the first place, not denying its impropriety; or even acknowledging it afterward.

 e. Due to flag officer participation in the still ongoing cover-up, and as negative consequences are largely absent within the USCG  “good old boy” officer network, the conspiratorial USCG principals will not face so much as a verbal reprimand for circumventing regulations, the UCMJ and federal law.  Nor will other complicit officers suffer any consequences for their duplicitous actions or inaction.

5. As detailed in my BCMR Application narrative “Unsubstantiated Charge of Fraudulent Enlistment” and elsewhere, my separation was not administered in accordance with the myriad requirements of written USCG regulations.  Per my DD-214, the Block 25. Separation Authority was Subparagraph 1.B.17.b. (5) of the Coast Guard Military Separations manual.  This sentence addresses fraudulent enlistment: 

“A member may be discharged for procuring a fraudulent enlistment, induction, or period of active service through any material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which, if known at the time, might have resulted in rejection.” 

a. This nonsense sentence defines the possible future outcome of past actions using a “third conditional” statement describing hypothetical events in both the past and future.  This complex grammatical construct that a problematic action, if known in the past might have resulted in a negative outcome, may result in a negative outcome in the future is impossible to prove.  This sentence is not regulatory guidance, it is gibberish; and not surprisingly, was written by personnel from the same CG-1 / HR office (CG-1331) that staffed my 3-person DRB.

 “Persons Ineligible for Coast Guard Service:  Repeated drug, including marijuana, or chemical substance abuse/use, where the use of and reliance on these substances are part of the person’s behavior pattern. NOTE: This does not include drug experimentation, which is defined as a few times for reasons of curiosity, peer pressure, or similar reasons.”  Coast Guard Recruiting Manual

 b. As noted by the USCG “counsel” with whom I spoke prior to my discharge, the Coast Guard could not prove that I fraudulently enlisted under the “authority” of this ambiguous article of the Military Separations manual.  They did not.  But not just because of this nonsense article; but also because there is simply no evidence to support the rationale that my Recruiter more correctly quantifying my pre-USCG marijuana use, in agreement with my verbal disclosures, would have resulted in the rejection of my enlistment application.

c. The acceptance or rejection of a USCG enlistee-candidate who has admitted to past limited drug use is based on a subjective decision by the Recruiter, supposedly in accordance with the official guidance above; but, in practice, is corrupted by various “incentives”, including awards, points toward promotion and “performance pay”.  Today, a U.S. military Recruiter may earn as much as $18,000 per year in bonuses.

 d. Per the related UCMJ Punitive Article 104a statute, a “fraudulent enlistment” misrepresentation needs to be knowing, and concealment deliberate.  I openly and honestly discussed my pre-USCG marijuana use with my Recruiter when preparing my enlistment papers.  I did not deliberately misrepresent my marijuana use, and wasn’t aware of any issues until nearly three years later, without provocation, justification, or explanation, a false accusation of illicit narcotics use by my Chief led my COr down the low road to my adverse, involuntary separation for fraudulent enlistment with an uncharacterized discharge.

 6. There is no proof or even credible evidence that I enlisted fraudulently, nor that further quantifying my pre-Coast Guard marijuana use would have resulted in my being rejected for enlistment.  The Coast Guard could not have legally or ethically separated me administratively with a libelous DD-214 without concrete proof that I violated the specific and ambiguous article of the Military Separations manual (1.B.17.b.(5)) that they cited as justification for my separation.  There is no DHS or USCG rule, policy or regulation that supports this breach of my Constitutional rights.

 7. The investigations that preceded my discharge (e.g., “Initial Crime Report” and “Criminal Investigation”) involved USCG Police, CGIS Special Agents, and USCG military and civilian lawyers in an effort to separate me for whatever accusation they could appear to justify.  Yet, as I was separated administratively, I was not subject nor party to any UCMJ-sanctioned proceeding, neither judicial (Court Martial) nor non-judicial (NJP/Captain’s Mast).  I was not provided legal counsel; fact-finding was not conducted, and legal rules of evidence, discovery and disclosure were not observed; witnesses did not testify; and I was not allowed to speak on my own behalf.  As there was no legitimate, evidentiary record, I had no opportunity to review the “evidence” nor question its propriety.  By ignoring legal due process, the Coast Guard violated my rights under the Constitution, and a foundational right of all U.S. citizens, to include those serving in the U.S. military:  All persons accused are entitled to a strong presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not Administratively Valid…

1. As detailed in my BCMR Application narrative, the Discharge Authority did not authorize my Administrative Discharge for Misconduct as required.

 a. Paragraph 1.B.1.a. (Discharge Authority) of the Military Separations manual states that “Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center, is the Discharge Authority in all cases of administrative separation except…” in separations involving USCG Academy cadets (Superintendent), Training Center Cape May recruits (Commanding Officer), and “The district commander, logistics/service center commands, or commanding officer, as appropriate… in those cases specified in Articles 1.B.7., 1.B.8., 1.B.11., 1.B.12., and 1.B.15. of the Separations Manual.”

 b. Paragraph 1.B.17. (Misconduct) subparagraph 1.B.17.a. (Policy) of the USCG Military Separations manual states: “…only Commander (CG PSC) may direct a discharge for misconduct.  Yet, in response to my FOIA 2019-CGFO-01454 request for a copy of the written PSC decision that authorized my discharge, the respondent asserted that, according to EPM-1, “that no such document or written decision exists”.

 2. As detailed in my BCMR Application narrative “Improper Discharge (Not in Accordance with Regulations) – an error of procedure, Part 1 – Misconduct, Paragraph 4 & 5, CDR Meador failed to support his recommendation for my separation for Misconduct with pertinent parts of the PDR as required by Paragraph 1.B.2.b. (Procedure) of the Military Separations manual.  By failing to include my performance record, my qualifications, and other positive aspects of my 35 months of active duty, he skewed the perception of my performance, providing only questionable data from the brief period I was subordinate to YNC Fischer.

 a. Additionally, per Paragraph 1.B.5b of the Military Separations manual CDR Meador was required to conduct a pre-discharge interview and to notify me of “the reasons why I was not eligible to reenlist”.   I did not have a pre-discharge interview. I was not told I would not be eligible to reenlist. 

 b. Per Paragraph 1.E.4. of the USCG Enlistments, Evaluations, and Advancements Manual, my CO was required to submit a memorandum of notification to Commander PSC that I was no longer eligible for reenlistment before my discharge.  The memorandum was to include sufficient facts to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that I did not meet the eligibility criteria.  Further, I was to be afforded the opportunity to submit a written statement for consideration by Commander PSC.  My CO failed to submit the required memorandum or any document with detail that might be described as “sufficient facts to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that” I “did not meet the eligibility criteria.”  I was not afforded the opportunity to submit a statement to PSC.

 A Character-Defaming and Libelous DD-214

 1. The Coast Guard’s use of the terms “misconduct” and “fraudulent” on my DD-214 qualify as “defamation of character”, as they present a damaging lie as factual; and “libelous”, as they defamed me maliciously and with a reckless disregard of the truth.  While in the Coast Guard, I was accused of allegedly lying about something I was suspected of doing before I enlisted.  I wasn’t in the Coast Guard when I used marijuana.  As I told the truth to my Recruiter regarding my pre-Coast Guard marijuana use, there was no “fraud”; there was no “misconduct”.  If there were, it was the Recruiter’s.

Improper and Inequitable Lack of a Discharge Characterization:

 1. The USCG’s AO did not dispute that my adverse, involuntary administrative separation was wholly improper.  The Coast Guard’s AO glossed over the fact that my punishing discharge was inequitable as evinced by a host of contemporaneous Honorable and Under-Honorable Conditions (General) discharges awarded via NJP or an administrative separation for a wide range of crimes, violations, or infractions including to:

  §  Over 1,400 Coastguardsmen for disobeying the Commandant’s written order by refusing the COVID vaccine (UCMJ Punitive Article 92);

§  Hundreds of Coastguardsmen for confirmed illicit / illegal drug or alcohol use / abuse (UCMJ Punitive Articles 134, etc.);

  §  A Coast Guard Academy Second Class Midshipman and admitted repeat sex offender for a sexual “assault consummated by battery” (UCMJ Punitive Article 120).

 a. The 8th Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” applies to punishments that are disproportionate to the offense.  In addition to prohibiting punishments deemed barbarous and inhumane, the 8th Amendment condemns “all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportionate to the offenses charged.”  Contrasting my discharge with those meted out in a UCMJ judicial proceeding for other offenses, “exhibits a difference between unrestrained power and that which is exercised under the spirit of constitutional limitations formed to establish justice.”

 2. The Coast Guard’s AO acknowledged that my evaluation marks (EERs) merited an Honorable Discharge at separation. The USCG Enlistments, Evaluations, and Advancements manual details the USCG’s enlisted evaluation standards in four categories:  Leadership, Professional, Performance, and Military on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being “Unacceptable” and 7 being “Superior”.  Even after my Chief lowered the marks recommended by my first-line supervisor, my averaged overall EER marks in the four named categories ranged from 4 - “Average” to 5 - “Above average”.  In my time in the USCG, I never received a mark in any category worse than “4 – Average” and my EER marks as a whole were well above those prescribed for an Honorable Discharge.

 3. The Coast Guard’s AO did not address my CO’s and Captain Matadobra’s (EPM-1) lack of authority to award an entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge to me or any Coastguardsman with over 180 days of continuous active military service.

             a. There are just two means of involuntary separation from the Coast Guard:  Administrative and Judicial (Court Martial).  Without concurrence from one of two signatories (the Commandant or Commander, PSC), the only discharge options available to my CO were Honorable and Under-Honorable Conditions.  However, in practice, the latter discharge is reserved for individuals with multiple non-judicial punishments.  I had none. Per regulations, my time in service and above average performance evalustions required an Honorable Discharge.

 4. The Coast Guard’s AO did not contradict that my improper discharge was unquestionably punitive in effect by robbing me of my livelihood, and tens of thousands of dollars in Veterans’ Benefits.  As the Coast Guard circumvented due process and punished me without any legal proceeding, my discharge equated to extrajudicial punishment.  This extrajudicial punishment was unlawful by nature, as it was awarded outside the legal jurisdiction of the Coast Guard officers who fraudulently effected it without due process, or the proper authorization / signatory endorsement.

 5. If one sifts through the administrative chaff deployed by the Coast Guard in an attempt to mask their malfeasance in a bloom of lies, deceit and obfuscation, one will discover the actual misconduct at the heart of my administrative separation:  The Coast Guard’s unacknowledged and unexplained failure to characterize my discharge as required by USCG regulations.  My nearly three years of continuous active service and derivative evaluations were consistent with requirements prescribed for an Honorable Discharge.

 6. Per the USCG Military Separations manual, to involuntarily separate me with an entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge required one of two signatures: Commander, PSC, or the Commandant .  Neither signature was sought nor present on my discharge authorization.  By improperly separating me with an entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge, the Coast Guard voided all of my VA benefits, equivalent only to those convicted via Courts Martial of the most heinous crimes; even though there was no germane legal proceeding nor proof that I fraudulently enlisted.  That unethical Coast Guard officers improperly punished me administratively by usurping the unique authorities of others is a UCMJ Punitive Article “Unlawful separation” criminal offense, and the crime the perpetrators and complicit Coast Guard’s officers have worked to cover-up.

Closing Remarks

Administrative Waterboarding

1.  This now four-year effort to correct my DD-214 has required hundreds of hours in research and related communication with the USCG; much of which went unanswered.  Despite a wealth of evidence of malfeasance on the Coast Guard’s part, no complicit Coast Guard member has taken ownership of their actions.  I have not been heard and am rightfully indignant.

2. Upholding the corporate myth that senior USCG officers are infallible engendered a purely adversarial stance on the part of CG-1 and affiliated personnel where the focus was on “winning” vice on competently reviewing the facts of my case and reaching a fair and just conclusion.  For CG-1 leadership, my many petitions were little more than mosquito-like irritants to be ignored or swatted away.  CG-1 personnel – aided by the HQ FOIA Office – attempted to cover-up the malfeasance by simply ignoring my entreaties, or responding with lies or folderol when forced to by outside intervention. The small-minded vindictiveness demonstrated by senior Coast Guard officers lacked the intellectual honesty and ethical maturity expected of military professionals in positions of authority. Other peripherally-involved offices – notably CGIS and DHS OIG’s OI and WPU – exhibited an astounding degree of professional disinterest and listlessness in refusing to comply with, and enforce regulations and the law.    

3. Not long after my separation and unnecessary and humiliating, escorted ejection off base, My CO and Chief were promoted to Captain and Senior Chief, respectively; CAPT Matadobra retired.  I returned to my hometown, where I found work in a car parts factory.  I worked there until I secured a position as a government contractor using the same HR software I used in the Coast Guard.  However, soon after COVID “hit”, as the new-hire in the office, I was the first to be laid off, a dismissal that kick-started my dormant college aspirations.  Yet, without the GI Bill, I was financially constrained to community college; and after depleting my savings, moved in with my parents.  Nevertheless, I received an Associate Degree (Summa Cum Laude) from Community College, and was accepted as a 3rd Year/Junior at the University of Virginia.  However, in the absence of the GI Bill, the lack of college funding stalled my enrollment at UVA for a full year after I submitted my BCMR Application.  

4. I remain perplexed by my Chief’s inexplicably selective and malevolent treatment of both me and the only other male in the office, and by the highly unusual multi-chain-of-command-jumping relationship between My CO and Chief that caused him to blindly accept her series of false “see-if-it-sticks” aspersions as credible and act on them.  

5. Additionally, I am frustrated with…

  §  The overall demonstrated disinterest, serial tardiness, and shoddy work of USCG personnel as related to my case.  Nothing the USCG “accomplished” was completed within the legally requisite time constraints; and the products routinely included factual and grammatical errors.  PSC, DRB and EEO administrative records required to be made available for public inspection were either woefully incomplete or non-existent.

  §  The Coast Guard’s fraudulent EEO Complaint investigation and resolution process; and the Civil Rights Directorate’s non-compliance with the No Fear Act.

  §  USCG HQ FOIA personnel who illegally delayed or denied FOIA Request and Appeal responses, and authored, facilitated or tolerated partial, evasive or nonsense responses.

  §  The Director of CGIS, Mr. Berkow, who refused to condemn the illegal access to, and dissemination of my insignificant juvenile court records, or discipline those responsible; and refused my access to the CGIS ROI, while simultaneously widely disseminating it within CG-1.

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to… engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (or)… that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” – Rule 84 of “The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct”

 The USCG’s Judge Advocate General’s office that failed to protect me from fraudulent accusations, tolerated my being declared guilty without due process, and acceded to my unjustified, improper, inequitable and punishing discharge.  Coast Guard lawyers cognizant of my case didn’t have the virtue, moral courage or professional ethical foundation to intercede.

6. I am appalled by the USCG DRB’s lack of ethical depth as exemplified by their exclusive adherence to the policy of presumed propriety and leadership’s desires to uphold that policy in my case; and RADM Nunan’s (CG-1) decision to accept and enforce it nine months later.  The DRB functions under the aegis of the Judge Advocate General but is owned by Human Resources, which explains their routine laissez-faire denials of discharge appeals.  The USCG DRB’s contemporary discharge upgrade rate of <1% demonstrates their default position of USCG officer infallibility; and their having relied on the BCMR to actually do their job by proxy for many, many years.  An eight month JAG “legal review” focused on the Coast Guard’s potential risk to litigation, and the removal of the President of the DRB by RADM Jones in 2022 – a direct result of my exposing DRB deceit, errors, and incompetence in my case – serve as corroboration of the Coast Guard’s “consciousness of guilt”. 

7. I am sorely disappointed with USCG flag officers, aware of my separation’s questionable justification and flagrantly improper uncharacterized discharge, who did nothing to correct it, or to discipline those personnel that perpetrated, aided or abetted this misconduct.  Any one of them could have corrected their subordinates’ misconduct with a single memorandum any time in the past four years.  Yet, these flag officers, cossetted in their ivory towers, chose to cover-up the malfeasance.  Their decisions, indifference and inaction bolster my assertion that presuming USCG propriety is a flawed approach.

8. On a positive note, with a few notable exceptions, during my three years in the Coast Guard, my fellow Coastguardsmen and women, including my peers, enlisted supervisors, division officers, department heads and commanding officers, were first rate.  I enjoyed the great majority of my time in the Coast Guard and learned a lot!  However, as noted in my Application, my Command had well-documented leadership issues in key Command billets.  Yet, those personnel issues were “above my paygrade” and I was insulated from them by my exceptional Division Officer until her departure, when an under-qualified, temporary, part-time, virulent Division Officer was installed.

My Appeal

1. As a direct result of the USCG HR Directorate’s conceit-driven inability to simply admit an error, and the obscene disregard of duty exhibited by the Coast Guard’s duplicitous Discharge Review Board, the task of legitimately reviewing the correctness of my adverse, involuntary administrative separation, punishing discharge, and libelous DD-214 is now yours, the appropriately independent DHS BCMR.  Yet, after four years of effort to overturn this injustice in the face of bureaucratic intransigence, inaction and incompetence on the part of my Command, the USCG HR Directorate, the DRB, the HQ FOIA Office, the CGIS, and the DHS OIG, nothing the BCMR may mandate will heal the plethora of wounds I have endured at the hands of a score of Coast Guard personnel, all O-5s / GS-14s or above.

 2. I have never disputed that the Coast Guard was free to separate me involuntarily with a legitimately justified and characterized discharge.  The Coast Guard has never explained why they persecuted me, separated me, and refused to characterize my discharge.  Yet, counter to regulations, I was unjustifiably, intentionally, improperly and inequitably separated without a characterization of my above-average service, forced to repay a portion of my enlistment bonus, effectively fined tens of thousands of dollars in VA Benefits, and saddled for life with a “bad paper” libelous military discharge.

 3. My BCMR Application demonstrated that my adverse, involuntary administrative separation for Misconduct by way of Fraudulent Enlistment without a discharge characterization – for ostensibly using marijuana more often prior to my enlistment than my Recruiter recorded on my enlistment application was unjustified, awarded without due process, and given without convincing evidence of wrongdoing on my part.  My BCMR Application proved that my entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge was improper and inequitable, when considering my time-in-service, and above-average evaluation marks.  

 4. In my most-informed opinion, the Board’s way is clear:  Coast Guard leaders must be reminded that commanding officers charged with applying fundamental fairness and justice in separating service members involuntarily, must conform to written regulations and Federal law, which may include the application of punishment, but only after careful consideration, due process, and a legal proceeding.  The Coast Guard cannot and has not proved that I fraudulently enlisted.  There should be no gray area between innocence and guilt.  Invoke justice:  Remove the character defaming verbiage from my DD-214 and award this veteran the Honorable Discharge and full GI Bill benefits that I merit.