The Coast Guard just released the Good Order and Discipline (GOAD) Report covering the third quarter of fiscal year 2024. You can read this and previous GOADs here.
Here are five scenarios from the GOAD to help explain the terminology and likely follow-on impacts to members’ careers from these administrative and disciplinary actions.
Scenario #1
An E-7 received NJP for failing to notify his command after being stopped by local law enforcement and arrested. Based upon the police report which included the police officer’s observations and breathalyzer samples of .256 and .272, it was determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the E-7 operated a motor vehicle while drunk or impaired in violation of state law. The NJP was for violation of Article 92(3), dereliction of duty, for failing to notify his command of the arrest as required by the Discipline and Conduct Manual. The member retired in in lieu of administrative discharge.
In policy: An Alcohol Incident (AI) is when a member’s consumption of alcohol either contributes to their inability to do their job or contributes to their behavior that violates the UCMJ or civilian law. The CO/OIC makes the determination of an AI using the preponderance of the evidence (POE) standard. POE means it is more likely than not that the elements of the offense happened. So, for the case to be an AI, the CO/OIC must be at least 51% (some real and sea lawyers would argue it’s actually 50.1%) confident that the member willingly consumed alcohol, and that consumption contributed to their bad behavior.
A little deeper: Like the other Armed Forces, the Coast Guard’s policy is to not prosecute offenses at court-martial where there are state charges absent a military-specific reason. This policy is out of respect for state law enforcement interests and to avoid inadvertent interference with their court systems. The Coast Guard requires commands to start the separation process for:
Scenario #2
A captain was issued a CG-3307 documenting an Alcohol Incident for drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle. The matter was referred to a special board as mandatory separation processing is required for involvement in a drunken or impaired operation of a vehicle. As a result, the officer voluntarily separated with a Separation Program Designator code of “unacceptable conduct.”
In policy: The requirement to start the process for separation for members with a DUI (See Scenario #1 above) applies to all military members. This officer opted to voluntarily retire with a condensed timeline in lieu of facing continued administrative action.
A little deeper: The process for separating officers for cause is through the Special Boards process facilitated by Personnel Service Center. The number and type of Special Boards varies by the officer’s commission type (Chief Warrant Officer or Commissioned Officer) and commissioned time. As a Captain with more than five years commissioned service, this member would have undergone the involuntary separation “three board process” if they did not opt for a voluntary separation. The three boards are:
- A Board of Determination (BOD), also known as a ‘Show Cause Board,’ is a review of the Officer’s record and all pertinent facts related to the case. If the BOD fails to see cause to retain, they refer the officer to a Board of Inquiry.
- A Board of Inquiry (BOI) is similar to a hearing in which the Officer appears on their own behalf, represented by council, and with ability to call witnesses and present evidence. Officers referred to a BOI may opt to voluntarily separate in lieu of continued administrative action.
- A Board of Review serves as a final appellate review of the case to include all matters of record presented in the BOD and BOI. Their recommendation requires Commandant concurrence for separation.
Further: Special Board membership consists of three officers, each holding a minimum rank of O-5 and always senior to the officer under review. A member may not sit on more than one board for the same officer, and each successive board member must hold a higher rank than the previous member. In the case of an involuntary separation of an O-6, the Coast Guard would require at least nine Flag Officers (O-7 through O-9) to serve should the case proceed through all three Special Boards.
Scenario #3
An E-3 was discharged with a OTH [Other Than Honorable] for possession of child pornography. Additionally, the member was previously indicted by a federal grand jury for child abuse and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. The member entered a plea in federal district court and was sentenced to 10 years of probation.
In policy: A Commission of a Serious Offense (COSO) is grounds for separation based on an administrative determination by the CO/OIC that a member violated an article of the UCMJ that carries a maximum possible punishment of a punitive discharge (Ch 2.Q.2.c of CI 1000.4C). A punitive discharge is a Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge for enlisted members and a Dismissal for officers.
A little deeper: The CO/OIC does not need to take a member to mast (NJP) or court-martial in order for the offense to be a COSO. The CO/OIC must make a written determination (3307 Administrative Remarks) based on a preponderance of the evidence (POE, see Scenario #1).
That means: Because a characterization of discharge of Other Than Honorable (OTH) has severe implications on the separating member, they are afforded an extra step, an Administrative Separation Board, to ensure an OTH is warranted. With an OTH, the member loses access to most Veterans’ Affairs benefits, like the GI Bill, and other benefits. Administrative Separation Boards are convened for enlisted members who:
- have more than eight years of service and facing involuntary separation for unsatisfactory performance, unsuitability, or misconduct;
- have more than eight years of service and are eligible but not recommended for reenlistment; or
- recommended for an Other than Honorable characterization of service.
Scenario #4
An E-7 received NJP for violating Article 92(1), failure to obey a lawful order; Article 92(3), willful dereliction of duty; and Article 107, false official statement. The member disregarded an order from an Office in Charge of Station to report for a semi-annual weigh-in. The E-7 was found to have deliberately and without authorization entered his own fraudulent physical fitness test (“PFT”) into a Coast Guard database. The E-7 was awarded forfeiture of pay for two months and 60 days restriction.
In policy: All three offenses listed (both Article 92 and the Article 107 offenses) are a Commission of a Serious Offense (COSOs, see Scenario #3 above) as they carry a maximum possible penalty of punitive discharge.
A little deeper: While COSOs may be reason alone for a member to be involuntarily separated, COSOs also are disqualifying for re-enlistment (Ch. 1.E.2.e of CI 1000.2C). So, this E-7 would need their command’s recommendation to submit an appeal to Enlisted (or Reserve) Personnel Management (EPM / RPM) to be permitted to re-enlist.
Scenario #5
An E-3 was awarded NJP twice within a two-year period. At the first NJP, the member was found to be in violation of Article 86, absent without leave, and Article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation. At the second NJP, the E-3 was found in violation of Article 92, dereliction in the performance of duties, for falling asleep for over two hours while standing communications watch at a time when the station’s small boat was underway, offshore conducting helo-ops.
In policy: A primary goal of NJP is rehabilitation, specifically to correct unwanted behavior of the member. As stated in the Manual for Courts-Martial, “Nonjudicial punishment provides commanders with an essential and prompt means of maintaining good order and discipline and also promotes positive behavior changes in Servicemembers without the stigma of a court-martial conviction.” However, the need for multiple NJPs in a short time frame shows a lack of ability, willingness, or both for the member to be disciplined and productive.
A little deeper: A member may be separated when they demonstrate a pattern of misconduct. The most frequent example of a pattern of misconduct is the combination of two or more non-judicial punishments (NJPs), courts-martial, or civilian convictions in a two-year period. Other reasons for separation under this clause include a pattern of shirking, a pattern of failing to support dependents, a pattern of not paying debts, and a pattern of unauthorized absences.
The fourth quarter 2024 GOAD will be released this spring.
-USCG-
In the News:
Resources: