Reviewing the Discharge Review Board

The Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 of Title 33, 51.8 Relevant Considerations (CFR) Coast Guard Discharge Review Board states:  “In determining the equity and propriety of a former member's discharge, the DRB shall consider all relevant evidence presented by the applicant. The DRB review will include, but is not limited to, consideration of the following factors:

a. The quality of the applicant’s service… and “c. Any evidence of arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory actions by individuals in authority over the applicant.”

When I submitted my thoroughly documented and compelling Discharge Appeal  to the Coast Guard, I fully substantiated my assertions that:

• My selectively misandrist temporary division officer had targeted me simply for being a male Yeoman;

• the Base Elizabeth City Commander inexplicably supported her in trying to find any reason to separate me;

• the subsequent CGIS investigation was conducted illegally;

• the USCG withheld over 300 pages of exculpatory documents critical to my defense, and;

• my “uncharacterized discharge” was improper, inequitable, and unconstitutional, and my unproven justification for discharge - “Misconduct” - was defamatory.

Yet, 13 months later, when I received the complete denial of my Discharge Appeal, the Board stated that “The applicant has not substantiated any error or inequity.”   A footnote stated that “…the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is credible evidence (to include evidence submitted by the Applicant) to rebut the presumption.”  Per the board’s memorandum , they met to “thoroughly review my official USCG record and all available documentation.” 

My appeal included the requisite 4-page DD-293, a 15-page narrative, seven evidentiary exhibits and 13 references that the board would have had to access.  The Board asserted that “after a thorough review of your record, the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) interviews, and the evidence you provided, the DRB panel members, in a unanimous vote, recommended no change to your Character of Service, Reentry Code, or Narrative Reason”. 

As detailed on this page (“Neither the DRB nor the BCMR Accessed my Complete Service Record”), the board didn’t access my military service record as the Coast Guard had lost it months prior. As also detailed on this page, the board accessed my CGIS Investigation without authorization from Director, CGIS. Further, there is no mention or even an indication of their having accessed any of the 13 references I included. And, depsite the wealth of material to review, my Discharge Review Board took just two hours before voting “3-0 to recommend no relief”.

The DRB’s denial documents were rife with outright lies, misrepresentations, and other irregularities that, when taken together, demonstrate unethical behavior and inappropriate leadership influence on the ostensibly “independent” review of my discharge.  Their casual approach and predetermined conclusions completely ignored my appeal, nullifying five months of research, multiple FOIA requests, and significant time and effort in the preparation of my Discharge Appeal.  If they had actually read my Discharge Appeal and its attached references, they certainly would have noted the impropriety of my discharge in relation to the specific guidance of the USCG Military Separations manual; and identified its blatantly obvious inequities. Yet, it is crystal clear that they didn’t fully read my appeal and in failing to do so, disregarded their duty.

That their decision document passed through a year- long legal review and received RADM Nunan’s (CG-1) stamp-of-approval was directly in line with the Coast Guard’s effort to protect d my conspiratorial accusers and demonstrative of the corrupt Discharge Review Board. The proof of the DRB’s lazy, unethical , deceitful non-effort; and Flag Officer (CG-2) interference is both PSC and the BCMR overturning their decision two years later.

The USCG Discharge Review Board - Manned by the Same Inept Officers Responsible for the Faulted Military Separations Manual.

The DRB and BCMR Accessed my CGIS Investigation Without Authority

“Federal Regulations prohibit the disclosure of information contained in investigative and law enforcement records.” - DHS Office of the Inspector General

“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 (sic) of Military Records (BCMR), or similiar administrative proceedings unless authorized in writing by Director, CGIS.” - Coast Guard Investigative Service Roles and Responsibilities

In her memorandum denying my Discharge Appeal, RADM Nunan, then CG-1/Human Resources included two pages provided by CDR Gwilliam, the ad-hoc President of the Coast Guard’s Discharge Review Board. A section titled “Board’s Discussion and Conclusion”, included the following: “The basis of the applicant's separation derived from an investigation from Coast Guard Investigative Services (CGIS), when he was suspected of wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance while assigned to CG BASE Elizabeth City. During the investigation, CGIS performed a police records query on him. The database revealed the Applicant had several incidents with law enforcement agencies (local police departments) prior to his enlistment in the Coast Guard..”

As the Coast Guard’s DRB qualifies as a “similar administrative proceeding” (it serves exactly the same function as the BCMR), a written authorization from the Director of CGIS was required before my DRB could access the ROI.  As detailed by CGIS in their response to my FOIA Request, that authorization was neither requested by the DRB nor provided by CGIS; and serves as a further example of the illegal dissemination of juvenile court records.

Over two years later, the BCMR, despite my having brought the germane regulations to their attention in advance, did the exact same thing; again improperly disseminating both CGIS Investigative material, and protected juvenile court records without CGIS authorization, and counter to both Federal and State laws, respectively.

“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 Discharge Review Board - False, Misrepresented and Unsubstantiated Evidence

Under “Board’s Discussion and Conclusion”, my Discharge Review Board laid out in a single paragraph the Coast Guard’s “evidence” of my ostensibly having fraudulently enlisted:  “The basis of the applicant’s separation derived from an investigation from Coast Guard Investigative Services (CGIS)… when he was suspected of wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance while assigned to CG BASE Elizabeth City.”  …of which I was exonerated by both the Coast Guard Police Department and CGIS..

The false, misrepresented and unsubstantiated “evidence” detailed was three-fold:

• false pre-USCG drug/narcotic violations and multiple trespassing violations,

• statements in USCG Skype for Business text messages about my pre-Coast Guard marijuana use,

• reportedly admitting to CGIS that I had smoked marijuana more than twice in high school; and that I had no intention of telling the recruiter about my pre-Coast Guard marijuana use.

The Board further wrote: “During the investigation, CGIS performed a police records query and the database revealed the Applicant had several incidents with law enforcement agencies (local police departments) prior to his enlistment in the Coast Guard.  The violations included drug/narcotic violation(s) and multiple trespassing violations.” 

The “police records query” was one of the few pages provided me by CGIS in response to an FOIA Request. However, it makes no mention of any drug, narcotic or trespassing violations.  The word “violation” is never used in the document.  In fact, in a separate CGIS-generated document, CGIS Special Agent Jarrett Swann wrote “Database queries by CGIS revealed he had numerous contact with civilian law enforcement between 2010 and 2014... The records reviewed disclosed no information indicating his having ever been convicted of criminal offenses.”  Note that the SA Swann wrote “contact” vice the board’s “incidents” and “violations”.

The “police records query” that CGIS accessed (and illegally disseminated counter to juvenile law) was comprised solely of Police Response Reports.  Police Response Reports are a means by which police officers account for their time and justify their employ.  SA Swann correctly used the phrase “contact with civilian law enforcement” rather than “multiple... violations”.  The Discharge Review Board’s specifically stated justification for denying my Discharge Appeal was in large part based on “drug/narcotic violation(s) and multiple trespassing violations” that did not happen and were not discussed in the documents they claimed to have thoroughly reviewed”.

The “Board’s Discussion and Conclusion” continued: “The subject’s Skype for Business logs also revealed messages stating “I smoked a lot of freaking weed before I joined the cg” and “today marks 2 years to the day that I last smoked weed”… “I left for boot camp 30 days later.”

Thirty days before I left for boot camp was more than a month after I initialed/signed enlistment application admitting to experimenting with marijuana while in high school; and  six weeks after my recruiter separately filled out Section VI Remarks quantifying my marijuana use (that I did not sign) in my absence.  Thus, this comment cannot be used to as evidence of my “lying” on my enlistment application as it was completed and signed nearly two months prior to the event I referred to in my text.  My DRB panel either didn’t read the evidence, couldn’t properly interpret a Gregorian calendar, drew a false conclusion, or simply recited the conclusion desired by leadership.

Under “Board’s Discussion and Conclusion”, it further states: “During his interview with CGIS, the accused admitted to smoking marijuana more than twice in high school and falsified enlistment documents regarding his marijuana usage, and that he had no intention of telling the CG Recruiter about his drug usage.”

I have little idea exactly what I said during my CGIS grilling.  I do remember that I was under extreme stress and that SA Swann attempted to coerce me into admitting to a drug-related crime.  As I had not possessed nor used a controlled substance as falsely accused, I waived my rights and openly and honestly discussed my previously-admitted limited pre-Coast Guard juvenile marijuana use; just as I had with my recruiter. Thus, I no doubt told SA Swann that I had smoked marijuana more than twice in high school, just as I told my recruiter.

Despite mutiple requests for a transcript of my CGIS interrogation, the Coast Guard has refused to provide me anything other than references to SA Swann’s selective paraphrasing of my comments .  As a result, I am unable to respond to what amounts to hearsay.  As noted elsewhere on this site, the Coast Guard’s withholding of information that is at the foundation of their evidentiary case and my defense is illegal.

I did not falsify any enlistment application document.  Rather, I admitted to prior civilian marijuana use to my recruiter who filled out my USCG enlisted application in answer to a question that does not ask for nor accept quantifying amounts.  I answered all accession questions truthfully.  Additionally, although I signed a page in my enlistment application where I admitted to pre-Coast Guard marijuana use, I did not sign the “Remarks” addendum detailing dates of drug use that the recruiter filled out when I was not even in the same city.  In retrospect, based on the well-documented pressures placed on USCG recruiters to bring qualified young men and women into the Coast Guard, it is certainly possible that the USCG recruiter who filled out the application failed to fully or accurately incorporate my responses. He certainly would have been motivated by USCG financial bonuses to do so.

Neither the DRB nor the BCMR Accessed my Complete Service Record

Neither the Discharge Review Board (DRB) nor the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) had access to my record of military service; after an Appeal (DRB) or Application (BCMR), the key prerequisite for conducting either board. Why? Because the Coast Guard lost it sometime in the Spring of 2019.

The DRB simply lied, claiming that they had thoroughly reviewed a service record to which they didn’t have access. In both my Discharge Review Board’s letter denying my Appeal and the record of their deliberations included as part of RADM Nunan’s (CG-1) official denial of my Discharge Appeal, the DRB thrice noted their “thorough review” of my service record:

• “After a thorough review of your record …the DRB panel members, in a unanimous vote, recommended no change to your Character of Service, Reentry Code, or Narrative Reason.”

• “The Board thoroughly reviewed his application (with addendum and enclosures) and service records.”

• “The Board members thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s record of service and all available documentation.”

Yet, the Board did not have access to my complete PDR.  The three USCG officers on my Board - all from CG-1 - and the erstwhile President of the Board are liars. The truth can be found in a selectively-worded footnote in my DRB’s “decision document”: “Record was received from CGPSC-PSD-mr and includes all documentation that was available after a search of available records in the Coast Guard personnel records and augmented by Direct Access record data.” 

This statement implies that the board did not have access to my complete PDR, despite their narrative’s multiple assertions to the contrary.  This otherwise unnecessary footnote should have simply read:  “The applicant’s entire record of service was compiled, reviewed for completeness, and provided by CG-1 PSC-PSD-mr.” On 18 December 2021, I queried CDR Gwilliam, the de-facto President of the Coast Guard’s DRB and his two direct seniors (CG-133 and CG-13) via e-mail with this simple question:

 “Did my DRB have access to my per-regulation complete/full/entire PDR to include all of Sections I, II, III and IV beginning with my Application for Enlistment and ending with my DD-214?” 

Although I received electronic “read receipts” from all recipients, I received no response to my e-mail query.  Further, I also requested a copy of my PDR from the Coast Guard’s Headquarters’ Personnel Service Center both via e-mail and USPS letter with no response. Clearly, the DRB lied as to “thoroughly reviewing” ; and CG-1 / PSC’s was incapable of admitting they lost my PDR; another manifestation of the lack of integrity and ethics within Coast Guard Human Resources.

In fact, my BCMR later contacted the Coast Guard for my Personal Data Record, which the Coast Guard was unable to provide… because, as they admitted to the BCMR, they lost it. Subsequently, the BCMR asked me for selective portions of my service record that I had Xeroxed prior to being escorted off base; but even the BCMR never had access to my complete service record.

Passing the Hot Potato! “Wait, they expect us to do our job?”

Per the Office of Military Personnel Policy (CG-133) - the Chief of the Office of Military Personnel (CG-1M1) also serves as the President of the Discharge Review Board (DRB). However, for well over twenty years, the “can’t be bothered” Captains occupying that billet have detailed their DRB responsibilities to a Commander in CG-133 .

Although USCG regulations stipulate that the regulation-designated President of the DRB serve on a board of three or more officers, even the “acting” President rarely fulfils that function, typically passing the “hot patato” to a Coast Guard Reserve Lieutenant Commander. Thus, the senior board member, by regulation a USCG Captain (O-6), in actuality is a junior Commander (O-5) orLieutenant Commander (O-4) with ten or more years less experience than the legally designated Captain and no command experience.

Further, the actual DRB members are typically USCG Reservists or officers stashed at USCG Headquarters awaiting separation or retirement, all sourced from the Coast Guard’s Human Resource Directorate (CG-1), the very directorate that imposed the improper discharge! They couldn’t be less engaged.

This disragard of written regulations as to the make-up of a Discharge Review Board demonstrates just how unimportant, insignificant, and an general irritant CG-1 and Coast Guard officers consider reconsideriing a potentially-faulted discharge to be; and why the DRB discharge correction rate is a statistical zero (i.e. less than 1%).