DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1997-092 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10, United States Code.  It was commenced on March 26, 1997, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 24, 1998, is signed by the three duly 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxx in the United States Coast Guard, asked the 
 
Board to change his military record to show that on April 18, 199x, he received a 
disability discharge based on a diagnosis of  depression.  The  correction would 
enable him to receive certain educational benefits for which his current discharge 
does not qualify him. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  pushed  into  accepting  an  honorable 
discharge by reason of unsuitability with a separation code of JFX (personality 
disorder).  He was told that “[i]t was in [his] best interest.”  However, at the time 
of  his  discharge  he  had  been  diagnosed  by  the  Coast  Guard  as  suffering  from 
depression, and it had seriously affected his ability to perform his job. 
 
 
To support his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of his medical 
records, letters from doctors who treated him at the time of his discharge, records 
from  private  psychiatrists  who  have  treated  him,  findings  of  doctors  for  the 

Veterans’ Administration (VA), and a copy of the decision of the Coast Guard’s 
Discharge Review Board (DRB). 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 14, 1998, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  contended  that  the  applicant’s  request  “is  based  on 
confusion of the separate systems for military disability discharges and the De-
partment of Veteran’s [sic] Affairs (DVA) disability rating and benefit system. . . .  
If  Applicant  desires  DVA  educational  or  other  veteran’s  [sic]  benefits,  his 
remedy, if any, is with the DVA.”   
 
 
According to the Chief Counsel, the purpose of the Coast Guard’s Phys-
ical Disability Evaluation System (PDES), under which members may receive dis-
ability  discharges,  is  to  “compensate  members  whose  military  service  is  term-
inated due to a service connected disability . . . .”  The Chief Counsel alleged that, 
although the PDES defines “physical disability” to include a mental disease, “it 
does  not  include  such  inherent  character  and  behavior  defects  as  personality 
disorders. . . .  For a disability separation, the disability must be of a nature that 
is, or may be, permanent.” The Chief Counsel stated that  
 

the Coast Guard is statutorily precluded from discharging a mem-
ber for physical disability unless it determines that the member (1) 
has a disability incurred in military service; (2) that the disability is, 
or  may  be,  permanent;  and  (3)  that  the  disability  renders  the 
member unfit to perform the duties of his rate or office. 

 
According to the Chief Counsel, the applicant has not proved that, at the time of 
his discharge, he was unfit to perform his military duties because of a disability 
incurred in Service.  The Chief Counsel submitted a letter from the Chief of the 
PDES,  who  concluded  that  the  applicant  was  properly  discharged  and  recom-
mended that no relief be granted. 
 
 
The  DVA’s  goal  in  this  regard  is  different,  the  Chief  Counsel  said.    The 
DVA  is  “responsible  for  compensating  former  service  members  whose  earning 
capacity  is  reduced,  at  any  time,  as  a  result  of  injuries  suffered  incident  to,  or 
aggravated by, military service.”  [Emphasis in original.]  “Reasonable medical 
professional  opinions  may  differ,  and  the  procedures  and  presumptions  appli-
cable to the [DVA] evaluation process may be fundamentally different from, and 
more  favorable  to  the  veteran  than,  those  applied  under  the  Coast  Guard 
[PDES].”    Thus,  according  to  the  Chief  Counsel,  the  DVA  finding  that  the 
applicant  was  10%  disabled  for  major  depression  and  that  his  anxiety  mildly 
impaired  his  social  and  industrial  functioning  does  not  mean  that  the  Coast 
Guard erred in discharging him by reason of unsuitability.   

 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  also  dismissed  the  diagnosis  of  one  private  licensed 
counselor who treated the applicant in the winter of 199x for “major depression” 
as “unreliable” because she was not a psychiatrist or medical doctor and she did 
not  consult  the  applicant’s  military  medical  record.    The  Chief  Counsel  also 
dismissed the diagnosis of a private psychiatrist who reported that the applicant 
suffered from depression which was in remission after only one interview. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel emphasized that the findings of the DRB were not to be 
considered the views of the Coast Guard.  He stated that the Coast Guard had 
disapproved  the  DRB’s  findings  because  the  DRB  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
applicant’s  case  since  the  requested  relief,  if  granted,  would  create  a  monetary 
entitlement.  He stressed in bold face type that “[t]he DRB members apparently 
never solicited the views of Coast Guard Physical Disability Evaluation System 
(PDES) authorities regarding these issues.”   
 

The Chief Counsel called the DRB’s findings that the Coast Guard should 
have  convened  an  initial  medical  board  (IMB)  and  assigned  the  applicant  a 
disability discharge “unfounded” and “irrelevant.”  The applicant’s depression 
was “a reaction to stressors caused by the pre-existing personality disorder and 
did not constitute a ratable disability” incurred in service.  Therefore, the Chief 
Counsel stated, “Because there was no service-connected disability, there was no 
requirement  for  the  Coast  Guard  to  convene  an  initial  medical  board.”    More-
over, even if an IMB had been convened, the diagnosis of personality disorder 
would  probably  have  been  confirmed  because  “[m]ilitary  medical  authorities 
had  concluded  that  Applicant’s  episodes  of  dysthymia  [depression/irritable 
mood]  were  the  result  of  his  personality  disorder,  and  were  not  a  separate  or 
persistent medical condition.” 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
4/30/9x  The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years. 
 
11/7/9x  The applicant sought help at a mental health clinic at the Coast Guard 
Support Center in xxxxxxxx.  He told Dr. x, a psychologist, that he had 
suffered  depressive  episodes  ever  since  a  serious  car  accident  four 
years earlier had prevented his participation in sports.  He stated that 
he  had  suffered  mood  swings  lasting  for  several  days,  with  fatigue, 
sleepiness, poor concentration, and low self-esteem during depressed 
periods,  and  racing  thoughts,  talkativeness,  fast  driving,  buying 
sprees, high self-esteem, and less need for sleep when he was “feeling 
really good” in between the periods of depression.  He stated that he 
occasionally  heard  someone  calling  his  name.    Dr.  x  recommended 

that the applicant be hospitalized for evaluation of a potential depres-
sive disorder. 

 
12/2/9x  The applicant again consulted Dr. x and reported many of the same 
symptoms,  which  his  wife  confirmed.    He  stated  that  his  grand-
mother,  mother,  aunt,  and  uncle  had  all  been  diagnosed  as  manic 
depressive.  When told that he would undergo a Physical Evaluation 
Board if he was prescribed lithium, he stated that “he could live with 
that because he [had] mixed feelings about the Coast Guard.”  Dr. x 
decided to “rule out” a diagnosis of “296.5 Manic Depressive Disorder 
(depressed type),” found him “temporarily fit for duty,” and sent him 
to a hospital for evaluation. 

 
12/4/9x  The applicant was admitted to xxxxxx Naval Hospital to be evaluated 
for  bipolar  disorder  and  personality  disorder. 
  The  applicant 
described his depressive episodes as “twelve to fifteen hours of sleep 
per night, often lasting five to eight days, usually precipitated by an 
argument with wife.”  He described his manic episodes as “increased 
food intake, gains eight to twenty pounds in one week.  Does good job 
at work. . . .  He only requires four to six hours of sleep . . . .”  The 
applicant  denied  having  auditory or visual  hallucinations.    His  wife 
said  he  became  very  angry  and  aggressive  in  bad  traffic.    The 
applicant’s  mother  reported  that  there  was  no  history  of  psychiatric 
disorders in the family but stated that she had been depressed for a 
long  time  and  that  she  had  to  take  medication  to  handle  the  stress 
created when the applicant visited her. 

 
12/10/9x  The applicant was discharged from the hospital.  Dr. x, who signed a 
four-page  report  on  the  applicant,  found  no  evidence  of  grandiose 
behavior  and  described  his  mood  as  “euthymic”  (good/stable)  and 
his affect as “full.”  Dr. x reported that the applicant had shown “no 
signs  of  mood  disorder”  and  that  his  “history  [is]  consistent  with  a 
personality disorder with poor coping skills.”  The doctor diagnosed 
“Axis  I:    Marital  Discord”  and  “Axis  II:  Mixed  personality  disorder 
not  otherwise  specified  with  borderline  and  narcissistic/  histrionic 
traits,”  and  recommended  that  the  Service  administratively  separate 
the applicant.   

 
12/10/9x  The  head  of  the  Mental  Health  Department  at  the  hospital  reported 
that the applicant had undergone a psychiatric evaluation by a social 
worker,  who  diagnosed  a  “severe,  longstanding  (301.90)  Personality 
Disorder,  not  otherwise  specified  with  Borderline  Features.”  He 
further reported that 

 

 

 

[t]his disorder existed prior to enlistment and is of such severity as to render 
this  person  incapable  of  serving  adequately  in  the  United  States  Coast 
Guard. . . .  There are no  disqualifying mental/physical defects which are 
rated  as  a  disability  under  the  VETERANS  ADMINISTRATION  FOR 
RATING  DISABILITIES.    The  service  member  does  not  presently  require, 
and  will  not  benefit  from,  psychiatric  treatment  or  hospitalization  .  .  .  .  
Although the member is not presently suicidal or homicidal, he is judged to 
represent  a  continuing  risk  to  self,  others,  and  government  property  if 
retained in military service.  It is further recommended that this individual 
not be permitted to perform duties involving the use of weapons, ordinance, 
or  government  vehicles.    In  light  of  this  information,  it  is  most  strongly 
recommended  that  the  service  member  be  expeditiously  separated 
administratively by the command. . . .” 

Dr. x concurred in the diagnosis.  Despite the recommendation and for 
unknown reasons, the applicant was not discharged. 

1/21/9x  The  applicant  requested  a  prescription  for  Pamelor  (a  tricyclic  anti-
depressant)  at  the  xxxxx  clinic.    He  stated  that  his  psychologist  had 
said he needed the medication immediately and that his mother had 
recently  been  diagnosed  with  “genetic  depression”  and  was  taking 
Pamelor.    Dr.  x  found  that  the  applicant  had  anxiety  and  “may  be 
mildly depressed” and prescribed doxepin (a tricyclic antidepressant). 

 
1/24/9x  The applicant consulted Dr. x and reported feeling much better since 
beginning to take doxepin.  The doctor provisionally diagnosed “Axis 
I:  311.00  Depressive  Disorder  [unspecified]”  and  “Axis  II:  301.84 
Passive-Aggressive Personality [Disorder].”  Dr. x referred him to Dr. 
x for evaluation for a possible organic disorder. 

 
2/4/9x  Dr. x reported that he had ruled out  bipolar disorder.  His working 
diagnosis  was  “311.00  Depressive  [Disorder]  [unspecified],”  and  he 
renewed the applicant’s prescription for doxepin.   

 
3/10/9x  Dr.  x  ruled  out  organic  personality  disorder,  diagnosed  personality 

disorder (301.90), and renewed the prescription for doxepin. 

 
3/27/9x  Dr. x examined the applicant and again diagnosed a depressive mood 

disorder (311.00) and passive-aggressive traits. 

 
5/15/9x  Dr. x examined the applicant.  He found him not depressed and “fit 

for full duty.” 

 

6/29/9x  The applicant consulted with Dr. x of the xxxxxx Support Center, who 
noted that “psychiatry finds he is F[it] F[or] D[uty]” and continued the 
prescription for doxepin. 

 
8/26/9x  The applicant was evaluated in order to receive a security clearance.  
The  xxxxxxx  Psychiatric  Clinic  found  no  evidence  of  depression, 
thought disorder, anxiety disorder, affect disorder, sleep disorder, or 
adjustment  disorder,  and  attributed  his  earlier  complaints  to  such 
“transient life stressors” as his new marriage, new baby, new job, and 
relocation.    The  applicant  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for  personality 
disorder, received no Axis I or II diagnosis, and was found “fit for full 
duty.” 

 
12/30/9x  The applicant reported to his ship’s chief medical officer that for the 
previous  two  weeks  he  had  been  thinking  of  hurting  himself,  had 
heard  his  name  called  when  no  one  was  there,  had  been  having 
nightmares,  and  had  lost  his  appetite.  The  applicant’s  commanding 
officer  ordered  him  to  undergo  a  psychiatric  evaluation  at  the 
xxxxxxxxxxx Medical Center. 

 
1/6/9x 

The applicant spent a week at the xxxxxxxx Medical Center.  Dr. x, the 
Chief  of  xxxxxxxxx,  reported  that  the  applicant’s  “depressive 
symptoms” had apparently “cleared upon arrival.”  Dr. x diagnosed 
him  with  an  “Axis  I:  Adjustment  Disorder  Not  Otherwise  Specified 
(DSM III-R 309.90), In Remission” and an “Axis II: Avoidant Person-
ality  Disorder  (DSM  III-R  301.82),  with  Passive  Aggressive  Traits.”  
Dr.  x  found  “no  disqualifying  mental  or  physical  defects  which  are 
ratable as a disability . . . [but] this individual does have a personality 
disorder  which  interferes  with  duty  performance  and  [his]  conduct 
and is so severe that his ability to function in the military environment 
is  significantly  impaired.    Separation  is  in  the  best  interests  of  [the 
applicant] and the U.S. Coast Guard.”  The applicant’s prognosis was 
“poor.”    He  was  referred  to  the  self-help  organization  called  Adult 
Children of Alcoholics. 

 
1/10/9x  The applicant was notified that, based on the diagnosis he received at 
xxxxxx,  he  was  to  be discharged  by  reason of  unsuitability  due  to  a 
personality disorder.  He signed a memorandum stating that he did 
not  object  to  the  proposed  discharge  and  that  he  did  not  desire  to 
submit a statement on his own behalf. 

 
1/14/9x  The  applicant  underwent  a  full  medical  examination  at  the  Coast 
Guard Support Center in xxxxxxx to determine if he was qualified for 

discharge.  He told Dr. x, a psychiatrist at the Mental Health Clinic, 
that his symptoms of depression had begun three years earlier.  Per-
sonality tests revealed a “pattern of passive-aggressive and avoidant 
traits which  manifest as difficulty with assertiveness and getting his 
needs met, which builds up and results in avoidance and/or temper 
outbursts and depression.”  Dr. x diagnosed “Axis I: Dysthymia” and 
“Axis  II:  Personality  Disorder  [with]  Avoidant  [and]  Passive-
Aggressive  [Traits].    Personality  Disorder  likely  interwoven  [with] 
Dysthymia—Disorder diagnosable at this time—however, Disorder is 
mild  and  amenable  to  treatment.”    [Emphasis  added.]    He  recom-
mended  that  the  applicant  be  separated  and  given  “follow-up 
treatment  for  dysthymic  condition  through  VA  system.”    [Emphasis 
added.]  

 
1/14/9x  A  physician  assistant  at  the  Support  Center  misread  Dr.  x’s  hand-
writing and typed “DISORDER DISGUISABLE AT THIS TIME.  DIS-
ORDER  IS  MILD  AND  AMENDABLE  [sic]  TO  T[reatment]”  on  the 
report of the applicant’s medical examination. [Emphasis added.]  He 
added  “NCD,”  which  means  “not  considered  disqualifying,”  to  the 
end  of  the  doctor’s  diagnosis  and  found  the  applicant  to  be 
“qualified”  for  discharge  and  to  “meet  the  standards  for  reten-
tion/discharge as described in section 3-F” of the Coast Guard Med-
ical  Manual  (COMDTINST  M6000.1).    The  report  was  reviewed  and 
signed by a dentist and a medical administration officer.  It was not 
signed by a licensed medical doctor; the regulations do not require it. 

 
1/26/9x  The applicant reported feeling great stress, sleeplessness, and depres-
sion  to  Dr.  x  of  the  xxxxxxxx  Support  Center.    Dr.  x  prescribed 
doxepin for the applicant’s apparent “depression.” 

 
1/28/9x  Dr. x noted rescheduling an appointment with the applicant to occur 
after  the  doctor  had  consulted  with  Dr.  x  and  Ms.  m,  who  was 
counseling the applicant. 

 
2/9/9x 

The applicant reported to Dr. x that the doxepin was working.  He felt 
better, could concentrate better, and was sleeping well. 

 
2/16/9x  Dr.  x  delayed  the  applicant’s  discharge  one  month  for  further  eval-

uation and a “possible medical board.” 

 
2/25/9x  The  Military  Personnel  Command  responded  to  Dr.  x’s  request  by 
instructing  the  Support  Center  to  “expedite  IMB”  for  the  applicant 
and to notify them if the discharge was not effected within 30 days. 

The  applicant  consulted  Dr.  x  about  increased  stress.    The  doctor 
continued to prescribe doxepin. 

 
3/12/9x  The  xxxxxx  Support  Center  notified  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast 
Guard that the applicant had been “found to be physically qual[ified] 
for disch[arge] by competent med[ical] auth[ority]” on March 4, 199x, 
and  that  he  would  be  discharged  immediately.    Other  than  Dr.  x’s 
brief  notes  about  stress  and  doxepin,  there  are  no  medical  records 
dated March 4, 199x, in the applicant’s records. 

 
3/14/9x  The  applicant  consulted  Ms.  m,  xxxxx,  a  counselor  for  Coast  Guard 
members,  four  times  between  January  3  and  March  7,  199x.    Ms.  m 
diagnosed “Axis I: Dysthymia, 300.40” and “Axis II:  None” based on 
his  symptoms  of  depressed  mood,  sleep  disturbance,  hopelessness, 
anxiety, low energy, low self-esteem, poor concentration, and difficul-
ty  in  making  decisions,  which  had  “persisted  continuously  except 
while [he was] on medication.” She did “not ma[k]e a diagnosis of an 
underlying  Personality  Disorder  (Axis  II)  because  [she]  believe[d] 
[his]  responsiveness  to  treatment  (psychodynamic  and  medication), 
[his]  willingness  to  undertake  and  persist  in  treatment,  and  [his] 
family history of alcoholic and depressed parents [were] all significant 
contraindicators of a personality disorder.” 

 
3/15/9x  The applicant had one appointment with Dr. x, a private psychiatrist, 
who diagnosed “Major Dep[ression] Remit 296.30” and advised him 
to continue outpatient therapy after being discharged. 

 
3/18/9x  The applicant reported to Dr. x that he was feeling better.  Dr. x found 
that his mood was good and there was no sign of thought disorder.  
He continued the prescription for doxepin.  Dr. x also wrote a letter to 
the VA in which he stated that the applicant had been diagnosed with 
Dysthymia but responded well to doxepin.  He recommended that the 
applicant  continue  to  take  doxepin.    He  stated  that  Dr.  x  had 
confirmed the diagnosis. 

 
4/18/9x  The  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuit-

 
3/4/9x 

ability with a separation code of JFX (personality disorder). 

 
1/4/9x  An  adjudicator  for  the  VA  “reviewed  all  the  evidence  of  record  in-
cluding  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder  and  adjustment  disorder 
versus  dysthymia  or  major  depression.    The  available  evidence  that 
pertains to a diagnosis of depression dates back some three years and 

strongly  supports  the  major  depression  or  dysthymia  diagnosis  and 
gains added support by the favorable response to the antidepressant 
medications.    The  reported  weight  loss  during  the  time  the  veteran 
was  depressed  is  more  suggestive  of  major  depression  than  dys-
thymia.    The  diagnosis  given  by  the  VA  examiner  was  of  major 
depression, recurrent in partial remission on medication.  Service con-
nection is granted with a 10 percent evaluation assigned to reflect the 
mild social and industrial impairment.” 

 
6/7/9x 

The applicant applied to the DRB to have his discharge changed from 
“unsuitability”  to  “disability.”    He  argued  that,  due  to  his  “ratable 
condition” of Major Depression, he should have received an IMB prior 
to being discharged. 

 
2/14/9x  The  DRB  reviewed  a  summary  of  the  records  and  found  that  “an 
initial medical board was required by regulation, was recommended 
and requested, and yet was never convened.”  It concluded that, “had 
an initial medical board been conducted by the Coast Guard through 
the PDES, it would probably have reached the same diagnosis as the 
VA had reached.”  It also accepted a VA finding that the applicant’s 
condition was service connected.  It recommended that the reason for 
the  applicant’s  discharge  be  changed  from  “unsuitability”  to 
“disability.” 

 
2/3/9x 

 

 

The  Commandant  disapproved  the  DRB’s  recommendations  due  to 
that Board’s lack of jurisdiction.  The Chief Counsel explained that the 
DRB has “no authority to change the reason for discharge to ‘medical’ 
because such a change would create a monetary entitlement.” 

DATE  NAME 
12/2/9x 
12/10/9x 
12/10/9x 

Dr. x 
Dr. x 
Dr. x 

12/10/9x 

1/21/9x 

Social 
worker 
Dr. x 

1/24/9x 

Dr. x 

2/4/9x 

Dr. x 

SUMMARY OF DIAGNOSES 

DIAGNOSIS 

No manic depression1 
Personality disorder2 
No mood disorder1 
Personality disorder2 & marital discord2 
Personality disorder2 & no ratable disabilities 

May be mildly depressed but fit for duty.  Prescribed 
doxepin. 
Depressive disorder not specified1 & Passive-aggressive 
personality disorder2 
Personality disorder2 but No bipolar disorder1 

NUMBER 

No 296.5 
301.90 

 

301.90 

 

311.00 
301.84 

No 310.10 

3/10/9x 
3/27/9x 
5/15/9x 
8/26/9x 

Dr. x 
Dr. x 
Dr. x 

Oakland 
Psy.Clinic 

1/6/9x 

Dr. x 

1/14/9x 

Dr. x 

1/14/9x 

Physician 
Assistant 

Personality disorder2 & doxepin 
Depressive disorder1 
Fit for duty 
No disorders.  Fit for full duty 

Adjustment disorder not specified2 & Avoidant 
personality disorder2 which interferes with duty 
performance 
No disqualifying mental defects & No ratable 
disabilities 
Personality disorder2 with avoidant & passive-
aggressive traits interwoven with dysthymia1 which is 
“mild and amenable to treatment” 
Found qualified for discharge 

301.90 
311 

 
 

309.90 
301.82 

 

 

Dr. x 
Ms. m 
Dr. x 

Depression1 
Dysthymia1 & no personality disorder2 
Major depression1 in remission 

1/26/9x 
3/14/9x 
3/15/9x 
1Persons diagnosed with this condition are to be processed in accordance with the PDES Manual. 
2Persons diagnosed with this condition are to be processed in accordance with Chapter 12 of the 
Personnel Manual (administrative separation). 
 

300.40 
296.30 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Applicable Provisions of the Personnel Manual 
 

Section  12-B-6  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1000.6A), which requires each member not being discharged for a physical or 
mental disability to undergo a physical examination prior to separation, provides 
the following: 

 
b.  When the physical examination is completed and the mem-
ber is found to be physically qualified for separation, the member 
will be so advised and will be required to make a signed statement 
as to agreement or disagreement with the findings. . . .   
 

• • • 

 

d.  When  disqualifying  physical  or  mental  impairments  are 
found . . . 
 

If the member does not desire to reenlist or is being 
discharged for reasons other than expiration of enlistment, and the 
physical  or  mental  impairment  is  deemed  to  be  of  a  permanent 

(3) 

nature a medical board shall be held in accordance with chapter 17 
. . . . 

 
(4) 

If the member does not desire to reenlist or is being 
discharged  for  other  than  expiration  of  enlistment,  and  the  dis-
ability is deemed to be of a temporary nature, the member may be 
retained,  with  personal  consent,  in  accordance  with  article  12-B-
11f.(1)(a),  in  order  that  the  necessary  treatment  may  be  provided 
the member and a medical board held if indicated . . . . 

 

According to Section 17-B-5.1. of the Personnel Manual, “[i]f an evaluee is 
found ‘not fit for duty’ because of a condition which is not a disability . . . the 
evaluee will be separated without benefits.” 

 
According  to  Section  17-B-5.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  “[i]f  an  evaluee 
has  both  a  condition  that  is  not  a  disability,  and  also  a  ratable  disability,  the 
evaluee is entitled to benefits only if the ratable disability, considered alone, is 
determined to render the evaluee not fit for duty.”  
 
Applicable Provisions of the Medical Manual 

 
The Coast Guard Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) governs the 
disposition of members with psychiatric disorders.  According to Section 3-B-3, 
during the medical examination a member must undergo prior to separation, 

 
.  .  .  the  examiner  shall  consult  the  appropriate  standards  of  this 
chapter to determine if any of the defects noted are disqualifying 
for the purpose of the physical examination. . . .   
 

• • • 

 

When the individual is not physically qualified for the purpose of 
the examination . . . , the reviewing authority will arrange for the 
examinee to be evaluated by a medical board and provide admin-
istrative action as outlined in [the PDES Manual]. 
 
According to Section 3-B-6 of the Medical Manual, which is entitled “Sep-

aration Not Appropriate by Reason of Physical Disability,” 
 

[w]hen a member has an impairment (in accordance with section 3-
F of this manual) an Initial Medical Board shall be convened only if 
the conditions listed in paragraph 2-C-2.(b) [of the PDES Manual] 
are also met.  Otherwise the member is suitable for separation. 

 
Section 3-F-1.c. of the Medical Manual states the following: 
 
Fitness  for  Duty.    Members  are  ordinarily  considered  fit  for  duty 
unless they have a physical impairment (or impairments) which in-
terferes with the performance of the duties of their grade or rating.  
A  determination  of  fitness  or  unfitness  depends  upon  the 
individual’s ability to reasonably perform those duties.  Members 
considered  temporarily  or  permanently  unfit  for  duty  shall  be 
referred to an Initial Medical Board for appropriate disposition. 
 
According to Sections 3-F-2 and 3-F-16 of the Medical Manual, the follow-
ing medical conditions “are normally disqualifying” for administrative discharge 
or retention in the Service, and persons with disqualifying conditions “shall be 
referred to an Initial Medical Board”: 
 

The  “disposition”  of  members  diagnosed  with  a  “disqualifying” 
psychiatric condition is to be determined according to Section 5-B of the Medical 
Manual.  According to Section 5-B-2, if a member is diagnosed with one of the 
following  Axis  II  personality  disorders,  and  if  the  disorder  is  found  to  be 
disqualifying for retention under the terms of Section 3-F, the member shall be 
separated  in  accordance  with  Chapter  12  of  the  Personnel  Manual:  301.82 
(avoidant), 301.90 (not otherwise specified, includes passive-aggressive). 

 
According to Section 5-B-10 of the Medical Manual, if a member is diag-
nosed  with  one  of  the  following  Axis  I  mood  disorders,  and  if  the  disorder  is 
found to be disqualifying for retention under the terms of Section 3-F, the mem-
ber  shall  be  processed  in  accordance  with  the  PDES  Manual:  296  (major 

b. 
Affective (mood) disorders: anxiety, somatoform, or dissoci-
ative (neurotic) disorders.  Persistence or recurrence of symptoms 
sufficient  to  require  extended  or  recurrent  hospitalization,  lack  of 
significant  improvement  of  symptoms  by  hospitalization,  symp-
toms  requiring  extended  treatment,  or  the  necessity  for  duty  in  a 
protected environment. . . .   
 
Personality,  sexual,  factitious,  psychoactive  substance  use 
c. 
disorders; personality trait(s); disorders of impulse control not else-
where  classified.    These  conditions  may  render  an  individual 
administratively  unfit  rather  than  unfit  because  of  a  physical  im-
pairment.  Interference with performance of effective duty will be 
dealt with through appropriate administrative channels (see section 
5-B). 

 

depressive  disorder),  300.4  (dysthymic  disorder),  311  (depressive  disorder  not 
otherwise specified). 

 

Applicable Provisions of the PDES Manual  
 
 
The  PDES  Manual  (COMDTINST  M1850.2B)  governs  the  separation  of 
members because of physical disability.  Section 2-A-6 of the manual states the 
following: 
 

Certain conditions and defects may cause an evaluee to be unfit for 
continued  duty  and  yet  not  be  physical  disabilities  within  the 
meaning of the law, thereby subjecting the evaluee to administra-
tive separation.  These conditions include . . . character disorders . . 
. . 

 
 
Section 2-A-15 of the PDES Manual defines the term “fit for duty” as “ . . . 
the status of a member who is physically and mentally able to perform the duties 
of office, grade, rank, or rating. . . .” 
 
 
Section  2-A-21  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  that  the  terms  “physical  im-
pairment” and “physical defect” include mental diseases but not personality dis-
orders. 
 

Section  2-A-36  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  the  term  “physical  disability” 
includes mental diseases that render a member unfit for continued duty but not 
personality disorders. 
 
 

Section 2-C-2 of the PDES Manual states the following: 
 
b.(1)  Continued  performance  of  duty  until  a  service  member  is 
scheduled for separation or retirement for reasons other than phys-
ical disability creates a presumption of fitness for duty.  This pre-
sumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that: 
 
 
the service member, because of disability, was phys-
ically unable to perform adequately the duties of office, grade, rank 
or rating; or 
 
 
acute, grave illness or injury, or other deterioration of 
the member’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to or 
coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons 

(b) 

(a) 

other than physical disability which rendered the service member 
unfit for further duty. 
 
    (2)  Service members who are being processed for separation or 
retirement  for  reasons  other  than  physical  disability  shall  not  be 
referred  for  disability  evaluation  unless  their  physical  condition 
reasonably prompts doubt that they are fit to continue to perform 
the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. 
 

• • • 

 

i. 
The existence of a physical defect or condition that is ratable 
under  the  standard  schedule  of  rating  disabilities  in  use  by  the 
[Department  of  Veterans  Affairs]  does  not  of  itself  provide  justi-
fication  for,  or  entitlement  to,  separation  or  retirement  from 
military service because of physical disability.  Although a member 
may  have  physical  impairments  ratable  in  accordance  with  the 
VASRD,  such  impairments  do  not  necessarily  render  the  member 
unfit for military duty. . . . 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of 
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, 
and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.   
 

2. 

The application was timely because it was filed within three years 
of  the  applicant’s  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  a 
personality disorder. 

 
3. 

During his time in service, the applicant was twice hospitalized for 
psychiatric  evaluation.    Both  times,  he  was  diagnosed  as  having  (1)  a  severe, 
long-standing  personality  disorder,  which  interfered  with  his  performance  of 
duty, and (2) no mood or bipolar disorder or other disqualifying defect or ratable 
disability.    In  addition,  after  both  hospitalizations,  the  applicant’s  doctors 
recommended that the applicant be separated administratively.  However, Dr. x, 
Dr. x, and Dr. x, Coast Guard doctors who examined the applicant many times in 
199x  and  199x,  diagnosed  him  as  having  both  a  personality  disorder  and  a 
depressive  mood  disorder.    The  antidepressant  drug  doxepin  relieved  his 
symptoms of depression, and the applicant was found fit for duty. 

In January 199x, the applicant was processed for administrative dis-
charge  as  a  result  of  Dr.  x’s  diagnosis  and  recommendation  after  the  second 
hospitalization. In accordance with Section 12-B-6.b. of the Personnel Manual, the 
applicant  was  notified  on  January  10,  199x,  that  he  was  to  be  discharged  by 
reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  He signed a memorandum 
stating that he did not object to the proposed discharge and that he did not desire 
to submit a statement on his own behalf.  Although the applicant did not object 
to  the  proposed  discharge  on  January  10,  199x,  his  medical  examination  for 
discharge,  several  psychological  consultations,  and  most  of  his  processing  for 
discharge  occurred  during  the  fourteen  weeks  that  passed  before  he  was 
discharged.  The Board finds that the applicant did not waive his right to object 
to what happened during those weeks. 

On January 14, 199x, the applicant underwent a medical examina-
tion in accordance with Section 12-B-6 of the Personnel Manual.  Dr. x diagnosed 
him as having both dysthymia (a depressive mood disorder) and a personality 
disorder.  He described the applicant’s condition as a personality disorder “inter-
woven” with dysthymia, which was then “diagnosable” but “mild and amenable 
to [treatment].”  Dr. x recommended that the applicant continue treatment for his 
dysthymia through the VA.  The physician assistant who completed the report 
on  the  applicant’s  physical  examination  misread  Dr.  x’s  handwriting,  reported 
the  word  “diagnosable”  as  “disguisable,”  and  determined  that  the  applicant’s 
condition was “not considered disqualifying.”  Despite this mistake, and in light 
of the definitions of disorders which are considered disqualifying in Section 3-F 
of the Medical Manual, the Board finds that Dr. x’s diagnosis that the dysthymia 
was “mild and amenable to [treatment]” fully supports the physician assistant’s 
conclusion that the applicant was qualified for discharge.  

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

7. 

 
Prior to the applicant’s discharge on April 18, 199x, he was further 
examined by Drs. x and x of the Coast Guard and by Dr. x, a private psychiatrist, 
and  Ms.  m,  a  licensed  therapist.   All  four  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having a 
depressive  mood  disorder  (although  they  disagreed  about  which  one  he  had), 
which was relieved by doxepin.  Ms. m contradicted a diagnosis of all previous 
examiners by finding no sign of personality disorder.  Therefore, the Board finds 
that, at the time of his discharge, the applicant had recently been diagnosed by 
Coast  Guard  medical  personnel  with  both  (a)  a  depressive  mood  disorder 
(dysthymia),  which  was  relieved  by  doxepin  (an  anti-depressant  medication), 
and  (b)  a  severe,  long-standing  personality  disorder,  which  interfered  with  his 
performance of duty.   
 

There  is  evidence  in  the  record  indicating  that,  in  late  January  or 
early  February  199x,  Dr.  x  consulted  with  Dr.  x  and  Ms.  m  concerning  the 

applicant’s psychiatric condition.  On February 16, 199x, Dr. x sought to delay the 
applicant’s  discharge  for  a  “possible  medical  board.”    The  Military  Personnel 
Command  agreed  to  the  delay  and  ordered  the  xxxxx  Support  Center  to 
“expedite”  the  IMB.    The  xxxxx  Support  Center,  however,  did  not  convene  an 
IMB.  Instead, on March 12, 199x, the center notified the Commandant that, on 
March  4,  199x,  the  applicant  had  been  found  to  be  physically  qualified  for 
discharge by competent medical authority.  The applicant was examined by Dr. x 
on March 4, 199x, but the doctor made no notation of this finding.  Dr. x noted 
only that the applicant was still dysthymic and that his prescription for doxepin 
was renewed.  Although these records indicate there was some confusion about 
the processing for the applicant’s discharge, the Board does not believe that they 
prove the Coast Guard wrongly evaluated the applicant’s medical condition or 
improperly denied him a medical board. 
 

According to Section 3-F-2 of the Medical Manual, if a member is 
found to have a “disqualifying” physical impairment during a medical exam, a 
medical board “shall” be held to determine the member’s disposition.  However, 
Section 3-B-6 states that the Coast Guard shall convene an IMB for members with 
disqualifying  impairments  only  if  the  requirements  of  Section  2-C-2.b.  of  the 
PDES  Manual  are  met.    That  section  requires  members  to  prove  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  they  are  not  fit  for  duty  because  of  a 
disability.  It also states that members such as the applicant, who are being proc-
essed  for  separation  for  reasons  other  than  physical  disability,  shall  not  be 
referred to a medical board “unless their physical condition reasonably prompts 
doubt  that  they  are  fit  to  continue  to  perform  the  duties  of  their  office,  grade, 
rank or rating.”  Therefore, the Board finds that, to prove that the Coast Guard 
erred by not convening a medical board to evaluate him for disability discharge, 
the  applicant  must  prove  that,  at  the  time  of  his  discharge,  (a)  he  had  a 
disqualifying physical impairment which rendered him unfit for duty or (b) his 
physical condition reasonably prompted doubt as to his fitness for duty. 

Section  3-F-16  of  the  Medical  Manual  lists  personality  disorders 
among those medical conditions that are “normally disqualifying” for retention 
in  service.    It  also  states,  however,  that  personality  disorders  may  render  a 
member “administratively unfit” for duty rather than physically unfit for duty.  
Under  Section  5-B-2,  such  members  may  be  processed  for  administrative 
discharge in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Personnel Manual rather than in 
accordance  with  the  PDES  Manual.    In  addition,  Section  17-B-5.1.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual  provides  that  a  member  who  is  found  unfit  for  duty  for  a 
condition which is not a disability may be separated administratively. Under the 
definitions provided in Sections 2-A-6, 2-A-21, and 2-A-36 of the PDES Manual, 
personality  disorders  are  not  physical  impairments  or  disabilities.    Thus, 
although Dr. x reported that the applicant’s personality disorder interfered with 

8. 

 
9. 

 
10. 

Section 3-F-16 also lists mood disorders among those medical con-
ditions  that  are  “normally  disqualifying,”  but  there  must  be  “[p]ersistence  or 
recurrence of symptoms sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitaliza-
tion, lack of significant improvement of symptoms by hospitalization, symptoms 
requiring extended treatment, or the necessity for duty in a protected environ-
ment.”    Although  the  applicant  was  hospitalized  twice  during  his  time  in  the 
Coast  Guard,  both  hospitalizations  were  for  evaluation  of  his  psychiatric 
condition  rather  than  because  of  a  diagnosed  mood  disorder.    At  his  medical 
examination  for  discharge,  Dr.  x  described  the  applicant’s  mood  disorder  as 
“diagnosable” but “mild and amenable to treatment.”  Furthermore, Drs. x, x, x, 
x, and x and Ms. m all found that the his depressive symptoms were relieved by 
doxepin.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s mood disorder did not 
meet the definition of one that is “normally disqualifying” for retention.  In addi-
tion,  none  of  the  doctors  who  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  dysthymia 
found that he was unfit for duty, and Drs. x and x had earlier found him fit for 
duty despite having diagnosed him with dysthymia.  

 
11.  According to Section 17-B-5.2. of the Personnel Manual, if a mem-
ber has both a condition that is not a disability, such as a personality disorder, 
and a disqualifying disability, such as a mood disorder, the member is entitled to 
the  benefits  that  come  with  a  disability  discharge  only  if  the  disability,  con-
sidered alone, is determined to render the member not fit for duty.  Therefore, 
the Board finds that, even if the applicant’s mood disorder had met the definition 
of “normally disqualifying” for retention, he would not have been entitled to a 
disability discharge unless the mood disorder also rendered him unfit for duty, 
which it did not. 

his  ability  to  perform  his  current  duties,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s 
diagnosis of personality disorder did not require the Coast Guard to convene a 
medical board or to grant him a disability discharge. 

 
12. 

The applicant argued that the disability rating he received from the 
VA  proved  he  should  have  received  a  disability  discharge.    However,  as  the 
Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated, and pursuant to Section 2-C-2.i. of the 
PDES Manual, the applicant’s VASRD rating does not prove that he would have 
been found unfit for duty by a medical board.  The Court of Federal Claims has 
held that “[d]isability ratings by the Veterans Administration [now the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs] and by the Armed Forces are made for different pur-
poses.    The  Veterans  Administration  determines  to  what  extent  a  veteran’s 
earning capacity has been reduced as a result of specific injuries or combination 
of injuries. [Citation omitted.]  The Armed Forces, on the other hand, determine 
to  what  extent  a  member  has  been  rendered  unfit  to  perform  the duties  of  his 
office, grade, rank, or rating because of a physical disability. [Citation omitted.]  

13. 

Accordingly,  Veterans  Administration  ratings  are  not  determinative  of  issues 
involved in military disability retirement cases.”  Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 
749, 754 (1983). 
 
 
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  any  error  or 
injustice by not convening a medical board or by discharging him by reason of 
unsuitability due to personality disorder.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The applicant’s request should be denied. 

14. 

The application for correction of the military record of former XXXXXXX, 

ORDER 

 

is hereby denied. 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Jonathan L. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 
 
James G. Parks