DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1997-115 
 
 
   

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The application was filed 
on May 2, 1997, and completed on September 14, 1998, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the 
applicant’s military and medical records.1 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  13,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to 
 
correct his military record to show that the disability discharge he received on June 15, 
198x, was based not only on certain physical disabilities but also upon a diagnosis of 
paranoid schizophrenia.2  In addition, he asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to 
                                                 
1  After his application was completed, the applicant submitted substantial new evidence on November 5, 
1998, and waived his entitlement to a decision within 10 months under 14 U.S.C. § 425.  After the Chief 
Counsel’s advisory opinion was received on August 18, 1999, the applicant was granted several exten-
sions of the time to reply.  He responded to the advisory opinion on February 2, 2000, but requested a 
further extension and submitted more substantial new evidence on June 15, 2000. 
 
2  Schizophrenia is a serious organic mental disorder characterized by loss of contact with reality (psycho-
sis), hallucinations, delusions, abnormal or disorganized thinking, bizarre behavior, and great difficulty 
functioning in social and  work  settings.   People with schizophrenia often have a blunted or flat affect, 
with  poor  eye  contact,  one-  or  two-word  answers  for  questions,  lack  of  emotional  expressiveness,  and 
lack of motivation and interests.  Stressful life events or substance abuse may trigger the onset of schizo-
phrenia in biologically vulnerable individuals.  The onset may be sudden, over a period of days or weeks, 
or gradual, over a few years.  The peak age of onset for men is between 18 and 25 years old.  See THE 
MERCK MANUAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATION:  HOME EDITION, Chapter 91. 

 

pay  him  disability  severance  pay  which,  he  alleged,  he  was  promised  and  owed  but 
never received.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

On March 26, 198x, the applicant reported to sick call complaining of being very 
nervous and “seeing things.”  He was interviewed by a psychologist, who reported that 
the  applicant’s  “affect  was  subdued”  but  that  he  reported  feeling  “desperate”  not  to 
return to his ship and had thought about killing himself.  The applicant reported some-
times seeing faces in front of him, but stated it was probably his imagination.  His eye 
contact with the psychologist was poor.  He reported being preoccupied with his heart 
murmur.  The psychologist found him not fit for duty “pending further evaluation in 
psych.”    An  orthopedist  examined  him  and  determined  that  his  shoulder  probably 
required surgery.  
 
 
On April 1, 198x, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist.  He complained 
of  constant  nervousness.    He  told  the  psychiatrist  that  he  had  begun  feeling  nervous 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  in  198x  not  only  because  of  his 
physical  disabilities  but  also  because  of  his  schizophrenia.    He  alleged  that  the  Coast 
Guard should have assigned him a disability rating for his schizophrenia and granted 
him a physical disability retirement.  The applicant also alleged that he never received 
the severance pay he was promised. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MEDICAL AND MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
On November 26, 197x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four years.  The applicant’s pre-entry physical examination revealed no abdominal, vis-
ceral, psychiatric, or neurological problems.  He underwent basic training in xxxxxxxxx 
and was transferred to the Coast Guard cutter Xxxx based in xxxxxx, on March 21, 198x.   
 
 
Two days later, on March 23, 198x, the applicant’s command sent a message to 
the Commandant stating that the applicant was debilitated by right shoulder pain and 
seasickness.  In addition, his medical records showed that during basic training he had 
reported for sick call 56 times with a variety of physical complaints.  The applicant was 
repeatedly  requesting  to  be  taken  off  the  cutter,  and  his  seasickness  appeared  “ex-
treme.”  The command recommended that he be admitted to the Public Health Service 
hospital in xxxxxxxxx because the cutter was headed to xxxxxxxxx, where “treatment of 
real/imagined ailments … are [sic] sparse.” 
 
 
On March 25, 198x, when the applicant attended sick call complaining of seasick-
ness  and  shoulder  pain,  the  examining  physician  diagnosed  a  recurrent  dislocated 
shoulder,  found  him  not  fit  for  duty,  and  referred  him  to  an  orthopedist.    He  also 
referred the applicant for psychiatric evaluation to rule out a mental disorder, such as 
anxiety or psychosis.  The applicant’s command reported that he had stopped respond-
ing to questions and begun to ramble. 
 

 

 

 

after he was diagnosed with a heart murmur at the age of 18, but that his nervousness 
had increased significantly after coming to xxxxxx.  He stated that his anxiety increased 
when he was aboard the cutter because he was not confident of his swimming ability 
and was afraid of the water.   
 
 
On April 8, 198x, the applicant’s right shoulder was evaluated by an orthopedic 
surgeon.  He told the  surgeon that he had dislocated it approximately 15 times since 
injuring it while playing basketball 3 years earlier.  The applicant also complained of 
having injured his left shoulder 4 times.  He was referred for surgery.  In addition, it 
was discovered that he had a bilateral hernia.  The doctor recommended that the hernia 
be repaired surgically after the applicant recovered from his orthopedic surgery. 
 
 
On April 10, 198x, the applicant underwent surgery at a U.S. Public Health Serv-
ice  Hospital  in  xxxxxxxx  to  reconstruct  his  right  shoulder.    He  spent  three  weeks 
recuperating in the hospital.  His chart indicates that he was “very anxious” much of 
the time.  On April 14, 198x, a nurse found him standing on a bed reaching for the win-
dow  shade.    She  reported  that  he  worried  that  people  thought  he  was  crazy,  needed 
constant reassurance, and seemed very confused.  The applicant was moved to a psy-
chiatric  ward  for  observation  and  evaluation.    He  told  a  psychiatrist  that  he  had  felt 
very anxious and fearful ever since he left home.  The psychiatrist diagnosed an acute 
anxiety reaction probably caused by morphine and decreased the amount of morphine 
being given.  He stated that the applicant’s affect was “blunted” and that he should be 
reevaluated  after  he  came  off  the  medication.    The  applicant’s  chart  indicates  that  he 
continued to suffer great anxiety and insomnia and to have a “flat” affect.  On April 21, 
198x, a psychiatrist prescribed “2 mg qhs” of Haldol (haloperidol).3 
 
 
On April 22, 198x, a psychologist administered a Rorschach test.  On April 29, 
198x, the applicant’s attending psychiatrist wrote that “[d]ata suggests [sic] a differen-
tial diagnosis of 1) Acute psychotic episode [due to] surgery [unreadable] v. 2) Schizo-
phrenia.”  The psychiatrist noted that the drug Haldol had been effective.  Later that 
day,  the  psychiatrist  wrote  that  the  applicant  remained  very  anxious  and  suspicious.  
His  impression  was  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  an  “acute  organic  psychosis  vs. 
functioning thought disorder (psych testing shows some type of thought disorder).”  He 
ordered that the applicant’s dosage of Haldol be increased to “4 mg qhs.” 
 
 
On May 1, 198x, a psychiatric intern reported that “[p]sychiatric testing indicated 
underlying thought disorder.  Acute schizophrenic reaction now in remission.”  Later 
that day, another psychiatrist stated that the applicant’s affect was flat but there were 
currently no overt signs of psychosis.  On May 2, 198x, the applicant was discharged 
from the hospital and told to continue taking Haldol (4 mg qhs) and to report to the 

                                                 
3  Haldol is a brand name of the generic drug haloperidol, which is an antipsychotic drug prescribed for 
various psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. 

 

 

psychiatric  clinic  in  xxxxxxxx  in  three  weeks,  after  he  returned  from  convalescing  at 
home in xxxxxx.  His diagnoses on discharge were reported as follows: “1. Right recur-
rent anterior shoulder dislocation. 2. Acute psychotic episode, following surgery with 
possible underlying disorder. 3. Heart murmur, with mitral valve echodensities. 4. Left 
inguinal hernia, asymptomatic.” 
 
 
On May 9, 198x, while on leave convalescing at home in Xxxxx, the applicant was 
admitted to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital in xxxxxxx for psychiatric evalua-
tion.    On  May  19,  198x,  a  psychiatrist  at  the  hospital  diagnosed  him  with  “phobic 
neurosis  300.00.”    The  psychiatrist  found  that  the  applicant  had  a  “neurotic  fear  of 
water” but no thought disorder, although he seemed “somewhat anxious” and admit-
ted that he sometimes feared people were laughing at him.  The applicant, he reported, 
told him that he had joined that Coast Guard hoping to avoid any duties near the water. 
 

On May 21, 198x, the applicant underwent “surgical repair of bilateral inguinal 
hernias.”  After recuperating, he began daily physical therapy for his shoulder.  He con-
tinued to attend sick call frequently with a wide variety of complaints, including pain in 
his left shoulder that he attributed to an injury that occurred in July 197x, prior to his 
enlistment. 

 
On June 11, 198x, the applicant told a doctor at sick call that he was very afraid 
his symptoms would return since he had been taken off Haldol.  The doctor reported 
that they “[d]iscussed relationship between mind and body and how his thoughts and 
attitudes play [a] key role in his anxiety.  Encouraged [the applicant] to continue physi-
cal  activities  (basketball  and  swimming)  as  well  as  to  resume  his  relaxation  exercises 
[twice] daily to help control his anxiety.”  
 

On September 11, 198x, the applicant was examined by his orthopedic surgeon 
who determined that his shoulder had a limited range of motion despite physical ther-
apy.  The surgeon reported “shoulder external rotation (-10 to neutral), limited abduc-
tion up to 90 only, limited anterior flexing to 100.  No lack of extension.”  He concluded 
that there was “residual impairment to a significant degree” after surgery.  He wrote 
that “[i]n addition to his overall psychological problem, I feel he should be present at [a 
physical evaluation board] for evaluation.” 

 
On September 23, 198x, the applicant appeared before an initial medical board 
(IMB)  at  the  hospital  in  Xxxxx.    The  IMB  diagnosed  “post  Bristow’s  shoulder  repair, 
right  shoulder,”  found  him  fit  for  light  duty,  and  referred  him  for  evaluation  by  a 
physical evaluation board.  The applicant signed a statement indicating that he did not 
desire to rebut the IMB’s findings.  However, on October 22, 198x, the IMB’s report was 
returned by the Physical Disability Evaluation staff due to the IMB’s failure to comply 
with Articles 17-B-6 and 17-B-7 of the Personnel Manual. 
 

 

 

 
On  November  20,  198x,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  psychiatrist  at  the 
Xxxxx  hospital  in  preparation  for  his  upcoming  second  IMB.    The  psychiatrist  found 
that he suffered from a phobic neurosis and was fit for limited duty.  He reported the 
following: 
 

… In April of 198x he was hospitalized while stationed in Xxxxxxx for repair of his right 
shoulder  dislocation.  …    During  the  period  of  his  hospitalization,  [the  applicant] 
described  what  in  some  ways  sounds  like  a  brief  psychotic  episode  during  which  he 
began to behave bizarrely, for example at one point threatening to jump from a window.  
He also recalls experiencing the feeling that his thoughts were being controlled and hav-
ing  auditory  hallucinations.    He  remembers  being  given  Haloperidol  (dose  unknown) 
which seemed to alleviate these problems. …  
 
[The  applicant]  notes  that  prior  to  his  enlistment  in  the  Coast  Guard,  he  had  never 
learned to swim.  He relates further that even after completion of Boot Camp, he still had 
not learned to swim.  During the course of subsequent sea duties, for example tending 
buoys in xxxxxxx and later ship duty on the xxxxxxx, he experienced recurrent bouts of 
“sea-sickness”.  He notes that he has since had increasing fear of the water and goes to 
great  lengths  to  avoid  any  kind  of  waterborne  activities.    In  addition  to  his  fear  of  the 
water,  [the  applicant]  states  that  he  has  come  to  fear  flying  …  .    [The  applicant]  also 
admitted to having someone else take a swimming test for him in Boot Camp. … 
 
ASSESSMENT: 
Axis 1.  Simple phobic neurosis (water/flight), DSM 3 300.29. 
 
Axis 2.  Dependent personality disorder, DSM 3 301.60. 
Axis 3.  Dislocation,  right  shoulder,  status  post-surgical  repair,  now  with  diminished 
function;  left  inguinal  hernia  repair;  left  varicocele  and  epididymitis;  motion 
sickness. 

Rule out[4] schizophrenia, paranoid type, sub-chronic, DSM 3 295.31. 

Axis 4.  Severity of psychosocial stressors – moderate, Code IV. 
Axis 5.  Highest level of adaptive function over the past year:  poor, Level V. 
 
Regarding the rule out listed above under Axis 1, it is unclear at this time whether or not 
what  sounds  as  a  brief  psychotic  episode  during  April  of  198x  represents  an  isolated 
incident, or evidence of an incipient or subchronic schizophrenic illness.  His suspicious-
ness and guardedness when questioned specifically about different aspects of disordered 
thinking during the interview suggest this possibility should be kept in mind. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS: 
[The applicant’s] neurotic symptoms of fear of water and flying, plus his motion sickness, 
would certainly interfere with his usefulness to the Coast Guard.  It appears as though, 
over the course of the last year, the symptoms are worsening and that separation from 
the service would be in order.  [The applicant] presents no disqualifying mental defects 
which are rateable as a disability under the Veterans Administration schedule for rating 
disabilities.  Also, he is mentally responsible, both able to distinguish right from wrong, 
and  to  adhere  to  the  right.    He  also  has  the  mental  capacity  to  understand  any  action 
which is being contemplated in his case. 

                                                 
4  The notation “rule out” means that the doctor believes the medical condition might exist and should be 
investigated. 

 

 

 
 
On December 5, 198x, the applicant underwent personality testing at the hospital 
in  xxxxxx.    The  psychologist  reported  that  he  suffered  from  depression,  anxiety,  and 
somatic concern, resulting in chronic physical complaints.  The applicant told the psy-
chologist that he sometimes felt possessed by evil spirits and heard “very queer” things.  
He  began  receiving  regular  psychophysiologic  treatment  at  the  xxxxxx  hospital, 
including training in biofeedback and relaxation techniques.  The treatment continued 
until he was discharged in June 198x.   
 
 
On  December  29,  198x,  the  applicant’s  orthopedic  surgeon  examined  him  and 
found “range of right shoulder – flexion 125 [degrees], abduction 90 [degrees], external 
rotation 5 [degrees] past neutral, internal rotation 80 [degrees].  Muscular strength in 
flexion and abduction = good.  Rotation = fair.”  He concluded that his “partial perma-
nent impairment of right shoulder is expected [to continue] indefinite[ly]” and that his 
complaints  of  pain,  numbness,  and  weakness  were  probably  due  to  post-traumatic 
arthrosis caused by the Bristow’s shoulder repair.  He found the applicant fit for limited 
duty:  “no overhead, heavy lifting, pulling, pushing over 20 lbs.” 
 

On January 12, 198x, the applicant was evaluated by a second IMB at the hospital 
in Xxxxx.  The IMB found that he suffered from shoulder dislocation, phobic neurosis, 
motion sickness, a hernia that had been repaired, and a heart murmur.  The board made 
an “orthopedic recommendation” that he was fit for limited duty.  The board also made 
a  “psychiatric  recommendation”  that  he  be  administratively  discharged.    In  addition, 
the  board  recommended  that  he  be  evaluated  by  a  physical  evaluation  board.    The 
applicant signed a statement indicating that he did not wish to rebut the findings of the 
IMB.  The board’s report was approved. 
 
 
On February 11, 198x, a physical evaluation board (PEB) was convened to evalu-
ate the applicant.  A lieutenant commander “law specialist” was assigned as counsel for 
the applicant.  The PEB found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of a physical dis-
ability described as “status post, Bristow’s procedure for anterior shoulder, dislocation 
– right – rated by analogy to arm, limitation of motion of – at shoulder level.”  The PEB 
found that he was 20 percent disabled but that he had been 20 percent disabled by the 
condition of his right shoulder at the time he enlisted.  It also found that, although his 
condition had been aggravated while on active duty, zero percent of his disability was 
attributable to in-service aggravation.  The PEB also found him to be zero percent dis-
abled by a heart murmur and “status post inguinal hernia repair.”  The PEB’s report did 
not mention any mental illness or phobia.  It recommended that he be separated with 
severance pay because of his shoulder disability. 
 
On February 25, 198x, the applicant was counseled by the law specialist regard-
 
ing whether he should accept or reject the findings of the PEB.  On March 6, 198x, the 
applicant rejected the findings and demanded a hearing before a formal PEB. 

 

 

 
 
On April 14, 198x, the applicant was prescribed Haldol (4 mg qhs) by a doctor at 
the Xxxxx hospital due to increasing anxiety.  A week later, the doctor wrote that he 
increasingly suspected “schizophrenic process.”  He prescribed Stelazine (10 mg qhs).5  
The applicant continued to report anxiety and various physical symptoms at his psy-
chophysiologic treatment appointments.  
 
 
On May 7, 198x, the applicant’s psychiatrist reported that he had “refused medi-
cal board and plans to abide by [the]  findings of the board in February.  This means 
he’ll probably leave service.”  The applicant continued to complain of anxiety, fear of 
sleeping, and numerous physical complaints. 
 
 
After being counseled by a different law specialist regarding his upcoming hear-
ing and about whether he should accept or reject the findings of the PEB, the applicant 
signed  a  statement  on  May  13,  198x,  indicating  that  he  accepted  the  findings  and 
waived his right to a formal hearing upon the condition that he be discharged “on or 
after 27 May 198x so that [he would] qualify for 4 months [of] severance pay.” 
 
 
On  May  28,  198x,  the  president  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  Physical  Review  Council 
approved the PEB’s findings and recommendation.  He explained that “[a]fter confer-
ring with the CPEB President, the situation reflected under V.A. Code 5299/5201 is that 
the evaluee entered the service with recurrent dislocation of his right shoulder, at a 20% 
level of disability.  Corrective surgery performed in the Service resulted [in] (as is nor-
mal for the procedure) a limitation of motion, also ratable to 20 percent.  Because the 
corrective  procedure  was  unable  to  correct  the  pre-existent  condition  without  intro-
ducing another, aggravation at 0 percent is appropriate.” 
 
 
On June 9, 198x, the proceedings and findings of the PEB were approved by the 
Commandant,  and  the  applicant’s  command  was  ordered  to  discharge  him  in  accor-
dance with Article 12-B-15 of the Personnel Manual and to award him severance pay.  
On  June  11,  198x,  the  applicant’s  command  completed  a  Personnel  Action  form,  CG-
3312A, signed by the applicant, indicating that he was entitled to disability severance 
pay and a lump sum for unused annual leave. 
 
 
On June 15, 198x, the applicant was honorably discharged under Article 12-B-15 
of the Personnel Manual.  His separation code was JFL, meaning that he was involun-
tarily discharged due to a physical disability and was entitled to severance pay.  The 
applicant signed a document stating the following in part:  “[I] hereby request that all 
final documents and monies due to me be forwarded to my separation address as indi-

                                                 
5  Stelazine is a brand name of the generic drug trifluroperazine, which is an antipsychotic drug often pre-
scribed for schizophrenia. 
 

 

 

In November 198x, the applicant began treatment for “irritability, explosiveness, 

cated on my DD 214.  I have received a substantial portion of my final pay.”6  A payroll 
form, DD 113-1C, indicates that he received $2,234.40 in severance pay. 
 
On June 23, 198x, the applicant filed a claim with the Veterans Administration 
 
(VA).  On December 15, 198x, the VA granted him a 20-percent disability rating for his 
right shoulder. 
 
 
In August 198x, the applicant sought treatment for pain in his left shoulder.  He 
told  the  orthopedic  surgeon  that  he  had  injured  his  left  shoulder  while  wrestling  in 
summer camp in 197x, prior to his enlistment. 
 
 
confusion, anxiety, and phobic fears” at a mental health clinic in Xxxxx. 
 
 
On  December  29,  198x,  the  VA  sent  a  “Request  for  Information”  to  the  Coast 
Guard asking for verification of the disability for which he had received severance pay 
and  of  the  amount  of  severance  pay  he  had  received.    In  response,  the  Coast  Guard 
indicated on the form that the applicant had been paid $2,234.40 in severance pay and 
attached a copy of a medical report to indicate the nature of his disability.  In addition, 
on March 22, 198x, the Coast Guard issued a recoupment order for $108.26, which was 
determined to have been overpaid to the applicant for excess leave at the time of his 
discharge. 
 
On January 6, 198x, the applicant filed a claim with the VA for disability com-
 
pensation.    He  sought  compensation  for  a  “nervous  condition”  acquired  while  in  the 
Coast Guard.  On January 21, 198x, the VA denied that his “phobic neurosis” was serv-
ice  connected  because  the  applicant  had  told  his  doctors  in  198x  that  he  had  a  long-
standing fear of water and had gotten someone else to take his swimming test for him. 
 
 
On January 28, 198x, the applicant filed a claim with the VA for increased dis-
ability compensation due to infertility.  On March 15, 198x, the VA denied service con-
nection for infertility because it was determined that his infertility was not caused by 
any of the surgical procedures or conditions he suffered while in service. 
 
 
On  February  3,  198x,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  by  a  psychiatrist  as  having 
anxiety with dysthymic factors and a personality disorder with schizotypal traits.  On 
February 16, 198x, he was examined by an orthopedist who determined that he had 110 
degree abduction and 135 degree flexion in his right shoulder. 
 

                                                 
6  The separation address shown on his DD 214 was the address of his parents, wife, and child, in Xxxxx. 

 

 

 
On August 16, 198x, the applicant filed a claim with the VA for increased com-
pensation  due  to  his  “nervous  condition”  and  disability  in  his  left  shoulder.    On 
December 21, 198x, the VA denied that the two conditions were service connected. 
 
 
In September 198x, the applicant sought psychiatric treatment at the VA Medical 
Center’s  Mental  Hygiene  Clinic    in  Xxxxx.    On  November  5,  198x,  the  applicant  was 
tested  by  a  psychologist,  who  diagnosed  him  as  having  an  anxiety  disorder  and  a 
schizotypal personality disorder.   
 
 
On  January  25,  198x,  the  applicant  sought  help  for  anxiety  at  the  VA  Medical 
Center.  He stated that he was taking Bentyl and Xanax,7 but they were not effective.  
He reported fear of water, bridges, heights, driving, being alone, being in a crowd, and 
dying.    The  doctor  noted  that  the  applicant  had  joined  the  Coast  Guard  hoping  he 
would  overcome  his  fear  of  water  or  be  stationed  away  from  the  water.    The  doctor 
found  no  psychotic  symptoms  and  diagnosed  “1.  Phobic  reactions,  multiple,  water, 
bridges and high place.  2. Anxiety chronic.  3. Schizoid personality [disorder]. …”  He 
referred  the  applicant  for  psychological  evaluation  and  prescribed  Triavil,8  which  he 
continued to take for several years.  On April 11, 198x, the doctor at the medical center 
increased the applicant’s dosage of Triavil because he had suffered “several panic epi-
sodes, one requiring hospitalization.” 
 
 
On October 3, 198x, the Board of Veterans Appeals found that the applicant suf-
fered  from  a  service-connected  psychiatric  disorder,  stomach  disorder, right  shoulder 
disability  rated  as  20-percent  disabling,  and  “residuals  of  left  inguinal  hernia  repair, 
currently evaluated as less than compensably disabling.”  The Board indicated that the 
applicant had initially sought service connection for a condition of his left shoulder but 
had later withdrawn the issue from the Board’s consideration. 
 
 
On November 7, 198x, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist for the VA.  
He reported that the applicant had not been able to keep a job and had withdrawn from 
school because of his nervousness and because people laughed at him.  The psychiatrist 
diagnosed him as a paranoid schizophrenic who was “competent for VA purposes” but 
“certainly unemployable at this time.” 
 

                                                 
7  Bentyl is a brand name of the generic drug dicyclomine hydrochloride, which is prescribed for abdomi-
nal pain associated with stress-induced digestive problems.  Xanax is a brand name of the generic drug 
alprazolam, which is a tranquilizer often prescribed for anxiety disorders. 
 
8  Triavil is a brand name of the combined generic drugs amitriptyline hydrochloride (a tricyclic antide-
pressant)  and  perphenazine  (an  antipsychotic  tranquilizer),  which  is  prescribed  for  anxiety,  agitation, 
depression, and schizophrenia. 
 

 

 

 
On December 5, 198x, the VA rated the applicant 50 percent disabled (but com-
petent)  with  service-connected  paranoid  schizophrenia  effective  since  the  date  of  his 
discharge, June 15, 198x. 
 
 
On February 14, 198x, the applicant underwent psychological testing at the VA 
Medical Center.  The psychologist diagnosed him with “Axis I – Schizophrenic disor-
der, paranoid type, chronic atypical depression.  Axis II – Schizotypal personality (pre-
morbid).  Axis III – Multiple physical complaints.  Axis IV – Psychosocial stressors:  Un-
employed, marital conflict, poor interpersonal relationships.  Severity:  5, high.  Axis V – 
Highest level of adaptive functioning in the past year:  5, poor.”  He recommended that 
the psychotropic medications be continued. 
 
 
On October 15, 198x, the VA awarded the applicant a 100-percent disability rat-
ing  for  service-connected  paranoid  schizophrenia.    The  rating  was  effective  as  of 
August 23, 198x.  The applicant continued to be treated with antipsychotic medications 
for schizophrenia, for which he was hospitalized several times.  His doctors sometimes 
diagnosed  schizophrenia  and  sometimes  schizoaffective  disorder.    In  addition,  his 
physical disabilities required numerous surgeries.   
 
 
In April 199x, after the applicant complained of diminished libido, he was found 
to have a low testosterone level.  After testing, he was diagnosed with hypopituitarism 
and empty sella syndrome.9  One of his doctors wrote the following: 
 

The etiology of this is unknown at this time, but the question was raised whether chronic 
antipsychotic use[10] (with their Dopamine blocking qualities, which subsequently raised 
his Probactin levels) may be a possible causative agent.  However, even when this was 
explained to the patient, he wanted to continue with the antipsychotic medications given 
that the psychotic  symptoms  were clearly much  worse for  him than the low  hormonal 
levels.   

 
 
On  August  4,  199x,  an  endocrinologist  reported  that  he  was  “doing  quite  well 
now on his replacement therapy for his panhypopituitarism.”  He stated that because of 
this  condition,  the  applicant  was  taking  hydrocortisone  and  testosterone,  as  well  as 

                                                 
9  The pituitary gland is contained in the sella turcica and controls the function of most endocrine glands.  
It secretes, inter alia, enkephalins and endorphins, which control pain perception, mood, and alertness.  A 
person with partial empty sella syndrome has an enlarged sella with a small pituitary gland.  He may 
experience headaches and loss of vision due to the enlargement of the sella.  Persons with hypopituitar-
ism have underactive pituitary glands, which may be caused by a tumor, infection, irradiation, etc.  The 
symptoms  of  hypopituitarism  in  adults  include  impotence,  infertility,  and  depression.  See  THE  MERCK 
MANUAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATION:  HOME EDITION, Chapter 144. 
 
10  The doctor noted that at  this time the applicant was taking Trilafon (32 mg  qhs), Doxepin (200 mg 
qhs), and lorazepam (1 mg tid), an anti-anxiety medication. 
 

 

 

Trilafon  and  Doxepin  for  his  psychiatric  symptoms.11    The  applicant  continued  to  be 
treated for panhypopituitarism and schizophrenia.  His doctors determined that anti-
psychotic medications were probably not the primary cause of his pituitary problems 
but might have been “secondarily responsible.” 
 
 
On  October  23,  199x,  the  endocrinologist  wrote  a  letter  to  the  applicant’s  psy-
chiatrist regarding recent medical complaints.  He noted that the psychiatrist had pre-
scribed  Trilafon  (32  mg  qhs),  Valium  (5  mg  tid),  and  Imipramine  (150  mg  qhs).    He 
stated that “[t]he evidence that this patient really has a pituitary tumor is rather limited 
and in fact his radiologic studies suggest that he has a partially empty fossa.  I believe 
the majority of his symptoms are related to his psychiatric problems.”  The results of 
several tests taken that day were normal. 
 
On October 7, 199x, an endocrinologist reported that the applicant’s tests were 
 
normal and that his complaints were thought to be “mainly caused by his psychological 
problems.”  The endocrinologist stated that, although the applicant had been diagnosed 
with schizophrenia, the diagnosis had been changed to anxiety disorder.  He indicated 
that the applicant’s condition had improved since he stopped taking “the major tran-
quilizers.” 
 
 
On April 26, 1999, the applicant’s primary physician wrote a letter “to whom it 
may concern.”  He reported that the applicant had been misdiagnosed as schizophrenic 
in 198x by the VA and was still taking antipsychotics in 1992.  The applicant’s current 
diagnosis is “anxiety disorder with an adjustment reaction,” which sometimes requires 
the  applicant  to  take  anti-anxiety  medication.    He  based  his  opinion  in  part  on  the 
assessment of the applicant’s psychiatrist, who stated in a letter to the physician that the 
applicant never had schizophrenia or any other thought disorder.   
 
 
On May 1, 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) informed the appli-
cant that there would be no change in his benefits.  The applicant had requested that 
they  change  his  diagnosis  from  schizophrenia  to  “adjustment  disorder  with  anxious 
mood” to improve his chances of being employed.  The DVA stated that  
 

[s]ince service connection has already been granted for schizophrenia, and because modi-
fication of the diagnosis for the service-connected disorder would result in no additional 
compensation benefits, the issue of entitlement to service connection for adjustment dis-
order with anxious mood is considered a moot point.  As with many mental disabilities, 
diagnoses often varies [sic], however, in the opinion of the Board, schizophrenia best rep-
resents the veteran’s overall psychiatric condition. 

                                                 
11 Trilafon is a brand name of the generic drug perphenazine (an antipsychotic tranquilizer), which is pre-
scribed for agitation and schizophrenia.  Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant prescribed for depression 
and anxiety disorders, including anxiety neurosis with somatic concern. 
 

 

 
 
On  August  17,  1999,  a  psychologist  for  the  DVA  examined  the  applicant  and 
reported  that  he  had  apparently  been  misdiagnosed  with  schizophrenia  because  of  a 
pituitary tumor.  She stated that this was the opinion of his primary physician, who had 
treated him for nine years; his psychiatrist, who had been treating him for 2 years; and a 
private psychologist who had followed his case for 13 years.  She stated that the appli-
cant had not been treated for schizophrenia or shown any symptoms of it since he was 
treated for empty sella syndrome in 1993.   
 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 18, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that relief should be denied because the applicant filed 
his application some 13 years after the expiration of the BCMR’s 3-year statute of limi-
tations.    The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant  knew  of  the  PEB’s  findings  on 
May 13, 198x, when he accepted them upon the condition that he receive 4 months’ sev-
erance pay.  Moreover, the Chief Counsel argued, the applicant should have known of 
the alleged error at the latest in December 198x, when the VA issued its final decision 
granting him service connection for schizophrenia.  Therefore, the Chief Counsel stated, 
the BCMR should deny relief because strong interests, such as efficient use of govern-
ment  resources,  prompt  resolution  of  claims,  and  loss  of  evidence,  “weigh  against 
excusing untimeliness in the present case because the record shows that the Applicant 
was well aware of his disability status in December 1994.” 
 
 
Moreover, the Chief Counsel stated, even if the BCMR should decide to waive 
the statute of limitations, relief should be denied for lack of proof.  He argued that a 
cursory review of the merits, required under Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C.  Cir.  1995),  indicates  that  the  Commandant’s  decision  was  justified  because  the 
applicant “was not treated or rated for [paranoid schizophrenia] while serving on active 
duty.” 
 
The Chief Counsel also stated that the apparent contradiction between the VA’s 
 
findings  and  those  of  the  Coast  Guard  with  regard  to  the  applicant’s  disability  is 
“explained by distinguishing the function and purpose of the Coast Guard’s Physical 
Disability Evaluation System [PDES] from those of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs 
[DVA].”  The law underlying the PDES, he alleged, “is designed to compensate mem-
bers whose military service is terminated due to a service-connected disability and to 
prevent the arbitrary separation of individuals who incur disabling injuries.”  A mem-
ber’s unfitness to perform duties is the “sole standard for a physical disability separa-
tion.” 
 

 

 
In contrast, the Chief Counsel argued, 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.”  He alleged that ”[t]he 
procedures  and  presumptions  applicable  to  the  DVA  evaluation  process  are  funda-
mentally different from, and more favorable to the veteran, than those applied under 
the Coast Guard’s Physical Disability Evaluation System.”  Because “[t]he DVA’s sub-
sequent finding that the Applicant was disabled is not binding on the Coast Guard nor 
indicative of differing or conflicting medical opinions between Coast Guard and DVA 
medical officials,” the Chief Counsel argued, “there was no error or injustice as to his 
disability rating.” 
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel stated, the record reflects that the applicant received 4 
months’ severance pay, amounting to $2,234.40, on the day he was discharged, June 15, 
198x.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  payment  of  this  sum  is  shown  on  the  form  DD 
113.1C  and  on  a  letter  from  the  Fifth  District  dated  June  18,  198x,  in  the  applicant’s 
service record. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  23,  1999,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant requested sev-
eral extensions prior to responding on February 2, 2000. 
 
The applicant stated that he does not recall ever telling his doctors in the Coast 
 
Guard that he had suffered frequent shoulder dislocations prior to entering the service.  
He  stated  that  he  remembers  telling  his  doctors  that  he  had  dislocated  his  shoulder 
many times while in basic training. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the psychotic episode he suffered while hospitalized 
in April 198x and his continuing anxiety and treatment with anti-psychotic medications 
throughout the remainder of his active service prove that his mental illness began while 
he was on active duty. 
 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that  the  law  specialists  assigned  to  counsel  him 
 
regarding  his  options  before  and  after  the  medical  board  met  did  not  have  his  best 
interest at heart.  He stated that in 198x, he was young, sick, and ignorant of his rights.  
He  stated  that  his  law  specialists,  knowing  that  he  had  a  nervous  disorder  and  was 
taking psychotropic medication, used his desire to leave the service and did not advise 
him as they should have. 
 
 
his left shoulder and three on his right shoulder. 
 

The applicant alleged that between 198x and 2000, he has had five surgeries on 

 

 
Finally, the applicant stated that he recently discovered that he had been misdi-
agnosed.  He stated that for the past 20 years, he has been unfairly stigmatized and ren-
dered unemployable by the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  He alleged that if the 
Coast Guard had properly diagnosed his medical conditions prior to discharging him in 
198x, his life would have been entirely different. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

 
Applicable Provisions of the Personnel Manual 
 

Article 12-B-15 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 198x (CG-207) 
stated that members with any of the medical conditions listed in Article 17 should be 
evaluated by a medical board in accordance with the terms of that article.  Article 17-K-
7(a)  states  that  members’  shoulders  must  allow  forward  elevation  of  the  arm  to  90 
degrees forward and abduction to 90 degrees (held straight out to side).  Article 17-K-15 
lists as conditions that require evaluation by a medical board “[r]ecurrent psychotic epi-
sodes, or a single well-established psychotic episode with existing symptoms or residu-
als thereof sufficient to interfere with performance of duty” and psychoneuroses with 
“[s]evere  symptoms,  persistent  or  recurrent,  requiring  hospitalization  or  the  need  for 
continuing psychiatric support.” 
 
 
Article 17-A-10(d) stated that personality disorders are not physical disabilities, 
although  they  may  make  a  member  unfit  for  military  duty.    Article  17-K-15(c)  stated 
that  personality  disorders  “may  render  an  individual  unsuitable  rather  than  unfit 
because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty will be 
dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.” 

 
Article  12-B-16  authorized  administrative  (rather  than  medical)  discharges  for 
members  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    The  conditions  listed  as  rendering  a  member 
unsuitable included inaptitude (lack of adaptability or skill) and personality disorders 
listed in Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual (CG-294) “[a]s determined by medical author-
ity.”    Article  12-B-12  authorized  administrative  discharges  for  the  convenience  of  the 
government  for  members  with  motion  sickness  or  other  conditions  not  considered 
physical disabilities. 

 
 
Article 17-A-1(h) stated that “[e]ntitlement to disability retirement or separation 
arises only on a determination of physical unfitness to perform duties.  It does not arise 
at the convenience of the member on the mere existence of a disability or a condition 
ratable  under  the  Veterans  Administration  Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities  [VASRD], 
which has not affected his performance of duty.”   
 
 
Article 17-A-12(c) provided that the VASRD “does not relate to findings of unfit-
ness for military duty.  Although a member may have physical defects ratable in accor-

 

dance with the VA schedule, such disabilities per se, regardless of degree, do not neces-
sarily render him physically unfit for military duty.” 
 
Article 17-A-20(e) stated that the “usual effects of medical and surgical treatment 
 
in service having the effect of ameliorating disease or other conditions incurred before 
entry into service, including postoperative scars, absent or poorly functioning parts or 
organs, do not constitute aggravation unless the treatment was required to relieve dis-
ability which had been aggravated by service.” 
 
 
Article 17-A-23 stated that “[w]hen there is reasonable doubt whether a member 
is fit or unfit or as to the nature of the condition causing unfitness, these matters should 
be resolved on the basis of further clinical investigation and observation and such other 
evidence as may be adduced.” 
 
 
Article 17-L-1(j) provided that “[i]n cases involving aggravation by active service, 
the rating will reflect only the degree of disability over and above the degree existing at 
the time of entrance into the active service, whether the particular condition was noted 
at the time of entrance into the active service or is determined upon evidence of record 
to have existed at that time.  It is necessary, therefore, in all cases of this character to 
deduct from the present degree of disability, the degree, if ascertainable, of the disabil-
ity existing at the time of entrance into active service … .” 
 
 
According to Article 17-B-7, an IMB report was required to “present a summary 
of the pertinent data concerning each complaint, symptom, disease, injury or disability 
presented by the evaluee, which causes or is alleged to cause impairment of his health. 
… the report must contain data to permit a reviewer to conclude whether the evaluee 
suffers impairment of health in any respect, and the degree thereof.  The report of the 
medical board shall not assign a percentage rating.”  The IMB report was also required 
to indicate whether the member was (1) fit for duty, (2) unfit for duty for reasons other 
than physical disability, or (3) unfit for duty by reason of a physical disability.  If the 
member  was  found  unfit  for  duty  by reason  of  physical  disability,  the IMB  was  sup-
posed to refer him to a PEB.  The IMB was also supposed to recommend whether the 
member should be administratively discharged for unsuitability.  Article 17-B-8 allowed 
the member to indicate his acceptance of the IMB report or to submit a reply, rebutting 
the IMB’s findings. 
 
  
According to Article 17-C-5, a PEB was required to review the IMB report and 
make a finding as to whether the member was (1) fit for duty, (2) unfit for duty by rea-
son of a condition or defect that was not a disability according to the terms of Article 17-
A-10, or (3) unfit for duty by reason of a physical disability.  For each physical disability 
found, the PEB was required to assign a percentage of disability and the percentage of 
any aggravation incurred while on active duty. 
 

 

 
Under Article 17-C-9, each member was entitled to be counseled about the PEB 
process by an attorney or law specialist.  After the PEB issued a report, the counsel was 
required  to  review  the  case  and  advise  the  member  regarding  his  right  to  reject  the 
PEB’s findings and demand a full hearing before a formal PEB.  If the member accepted 
the PEB’s findings, the report was forwarded to the Commandant for final action. 
 
 
Under Article 17-D-8, if a member rejected the PEB’s findings, he was entitled to 
be represented by counsel before a formal PEB.  The counsel was supposed to be “an 
attorney  or  [an  officer]  who  is  well  acquainted  with  the  regulations  and  procedures 
governing physical evaluation boards.”  The counsel was required to “prepare his case 
in accordance with the law and regulations and the best interest of the evaluee.” 
 
Applicable Provisions of the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) 
 
 
On April 7, 198x, after the applicant’s medical boards but prior to his discharge, 
the  Commandant  replaced  Article  17  of  the  Personnel  Manual  with  COMDTINST 
M1850.2, the PDES Manual.  The provisions of the PDES Manual were not substantively 
different than those in Article 17 with respect to the issues in the applicant’s case. 
 
Applicable Provisions of the Medical Manual 

 
The Coast Guard Medical Manual (CG-294) in effect in 198x governed the dispo-
sition of members with personality disorders.  According to Chapters 5-C and 5-D, a 
member  with  either  a  schizoid  or  paranoid  personality  disorder  was  eligible  for  an 
administrative discharge rather than a disability separation.  Members with psychoses 
and psychoneuroses were to be evaluated by medical boards in accordance with Article 
17 of the Personnel Manual. 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.   

An application to the Board must be filed within 3 years after the appli-
cant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The record indicates that 
the applicant signed and received the findings of his physical evaluation board (PEB) 
and his discharge documents in 198x.  Moreover, he was first diagnosed with schizo-
phrenia in 198x and with hypopituitarism and empty sella syndrome in 1993.  Thus, the 

 

 

 

1. 

 
2. 

applicant applied for relief more than 3 years after he knew or should have known of 
the alleged errors in his record. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the 3-year statute of 
limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in the 
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should conduct a cursory 
review of the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  A 
cursory review of the applicant’s record indicates that while serving on active duty, he 
suffered at least one incident of psychosis, and a psychiatrist reported a need to “rule 
out” schizophrenia.  However, the applicant’s PEB did not mention any mental illness 
in its report of his disabilities.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of jus-
tice to waive the 3-year statute of limitations in this case. 

5. 

The record indicates that at the time the applicant enlisted in November 
 
197x, he failed to inform the Coast Guard of any problems with his shoulders or of any 
phobia.    However,  while  serving  on  active  duty,  the  applicant  told  his  doctors  that, 
prior to joining the Coast Guard, he had injured both of his shoulders, which frequently 
became dislocated.  In addition, the records show that he told his doctors that he had 
been afraid of the water prior to enlisting and had joined the Coast Guard hoping either 
to avoid duty near water or to overcome his fear of water.  He admitted to one doctor 
that he could not swim and had cheated during basic training by having someone else 
take his swimming test for him.  
 
While recuperating in the hospital after a Bristow’s operation on his right 
 
shoulder in April 198x, the applicant suffered a psychotic episode, which the doctors 
attributed  to  the  morphine  he  was  taking  because  of  the  surgery.    They  lowered  his 
morphine  dosage  and  prescribed  Haldol,  an  antipsychotic  medication,  to  take  during 
his recuperation.  They also recommended that he be evaluated by a psychiatrist after 
his  recuperation.    Therefore,  in  May  198x,  the  applicant  was  admitted  to  the  Public 
Health Service Hospital in Xxxxx for psychiatric evaluation.  A psychiatrist determined 
that he was very anxious and suffered from a phobia: fear of water.12  
 
 
The record indicates that the applicant’s command and his doctors were 
aware that he had some psychological problem, as well as trouble with his shoulders.  
Therefore, in September 198x, he was evaluated by an IMB in accordance with Article 
17-B of the Personnel Manual.  An orthopedic surgeon determined that the applicant’s 
shoulder did not meet the mobility standards required for retention in the Coast Guard 
under Article 17-K-7(a) of the Personnel Manual.  The doctor also noted that the appli-
cant had an “overall psychological problem.”  The report of this first IMB was rejected 
by the Coast Guard for an error that is not specified in the record. 
                                                 
12  The applicant also underwent surgery for bilateral hernias at this time, but he did not allege that the 
Coast Guard committed any error with respect to this medical condition in his application to the Board. 

6. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 

 

 

7. 

 
 
In  November  and  December  198x,  the  applicant  underwent  orthopedic 
and psychiatric examinations in preparation for his second IMB.  The orthopedist found 
permanent  impairment  of  his  right  shoulder  and  prohibited  him  from  performing 
duties that would involve raising his arms over his head or lifting, pulling, or pushing 
more than 20 pounds.  The psychiatrist found that the applicant had a dependent per-
sonality disorder and simple phobic neurosis.  He concluded that the applicant “pre-
sents no disqualifying mental defects which are rateable as a disability.”  However, he 
also recommended that paranoid schizophrenia be “ruled out” and referred the appli-
cant for psychological testing.  The psychological tests revealed only that the applicant 
suffered from depression, anxiety, and somatic concern.  Absent strong evidence to the 
contrary,  government agents,  including  officers  of  the  Public  Health  Service,  are  pre-
sumed to have executed their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  See Arens v. 
United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. 
Cl.  197x).    Moreover,  although  the  Board  has  authority  to  correct  records  reflecting 
medical  decisions,  it  should  give  great  deference  to  the  professional  assessments  of 
medical  experts  who  actually  examined  a  member  at  the  pertinent  time  in  question.  
Therefore,  the  Board  concludes  that  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  indicates  that 
paranoid  schizophrenia  was  properly  “ruled  out”  by  the  psychological  testing  con-
ducted in December 198x in preparation for the applicant’s second IMB. 
 
 
In  January  198x,  in  light  of  the  results  of  the  psychiatric,  psychological, 
and orthopedic evaluations, the second IMB found the applicant suffered from phobic 
neurosis and an impaired right shoulder.  It determined that he was fit for only limited 
duty because of his shoulder and should be administratively discharged because of his 
phobia, in accordance with Article 17-B-7 of the Personnel Manual.  It also recommend-
ed that he be evaluated by a PEB.  The applicant signed a statement indicating he did 
not wish to rebut the IMB’s findings, in accordance with Article 17-B-8. 
 

8. 

9. 

In February 198x, a PEB reviewed the applicant’s record and found him 20 
percent disabled by the post-surgical condition of his right shoulder.  However, it also 
determined that he had been 20 percent disabled by frequent dislocations of his shoul-
der prior to entering the service.  Therefore, the PEB found that zero percent of his dis-
ability was attributable to in-service aggravation.  This determination was correct under 
Article 17-L-1(j) of the Personnel Manual.  The PEB’s failure to mention any mental ill-
ness  was  not  an  error  because  the  phobias  and  personality  disorders  with  which  the 
applicant had been diagnosed by the Coast Guard did not constitute physical disabili-
ties under Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual, Article 17 of the Personnel Manual, or the 
VASRD.  
 
The record indicates that the applicant was counseled for his PEB by a law 
 
specialist in accordance with Article 17-C-9 of the Personnel Manual.  On March 6, 198x, 
he rejected the findings of the PEB, requesting a formal hearing.  The record indicates 

10. 

 

 

that the applicant continued to feel anxious and seek psychological treatment.  In April 
198x, a doctor reported that he increasingly suspected “schizophrenic process” and had 
prescribed an antipsychotic drug.  In May 198x, the applicant was counseled by another 
law specialist in preparation for his formal hearing.  If he had appeared before a formal 
hearing,  it  is  possible  the  PEB’s  report  would  have  been  revised  since  his  doctor 
increasingly suspected “schizophrenic process.”  The PEB’s report might also have been 
revised to reflect any change in the condition of his shoulder.  His medical records indi-
cate  that,  by  February  198x,  the  mobility  of  his  shoulder  had  improved  and  met  the 
Coast Guard’s standard for retention on active duty.   
 
 
11.  After being counseled by the law specialist, the applicant chose to accept 
the  PEB’s  report  on  condition  that  he  receive  at  least  4  months  of  severance  pay.  
Although the applicant alleged that the law specialist did not have his best interest in 
mind  when  he  counseled  him,  the  applicant  did  not  prove  that  the  law  specialist 
advised  him  erroneously  or  in  bad  faith.    Nor  did  the  applicant  prove  that  he  was 
mentally  incompetent  to  make  the  decision  to  accept  the  PEB’s  findings.    Moreover, 
there is no evidence to indicate that his mental condition was so disabling that the Coast 
Guard should have overridden his decision and convened a new PEB.  The applicant 
continued to perform duty limited by the condition of his shoulder until his discharge 
on June 15, 198x. 
 
 
The record indicates that the Coast Guard followed the proper procedures 
required by Articles 12 and 17 of the Personnel Manual, Chapter 5 of the Medical Man-
ual, and the then-new PDES Manual with respect to the applicant’s medical boards and 
discharge.    Under  Articles  12-B-12,  12-B-16,  and  17-K-15(c)  of  the  Personnel  Manual, 
Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual, and the provisions of the PDES Manual, the mental 
conditions that the applicant had been diagnosed with while in service—phobias, a per-
sonality disorder, and depression—did not constitute physical disabilities so as to enti-
tle him to any disability rating.  The only ratable condition he had been diagnosed with 
was the condition of his right shoulder, which the PEB determined was 20 percent dis-
abling.  The applicant did not prove that the condition of his right shoulder was more 
than 20 percent disabling when he was discharged in June 198x. 
 
13.  Although the applicant alleged that he never received the severance pay 
 
he was promised, documents in his military record indicate that he did receive $2,234.40 
in  severance  pay.   The  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence 
that these records are incorrect. 
 
 
Initially, the applicant alleged that the Coast Guard erred by not diagnos-
ing his schizophrenia.  The record indicates that, after he left the Coast Guard, his diag-
nosis worsened gradually from anxiety and phobias in November 198x, to chronic anxi-
ety  and  a  personality disorder  with  schizotypal  traits  in  198x, to  schizoid  personality 
disorder in 198x, to paranoid schizophrenia in 198x.  These diagnoses were made by the 

12. 

14. 

 

VA,  which  in  December  198x  back-dated  his  initial  50-percent  disability  rating  for 
schizophrenia to the date of his discharge.  However, a diagnosis of schizophrenia in 
198x does not prove the applicant suffered from it in 198x.  The onset of schizophrenia 
may  be  very  gradual,  as  indicated  by  the  VA’s  diagnoses.    Moreover,  it  is  unclear 
whether the applicant ever suffered from schizophrenia.  His doctors now report that 
his only mental illness is an anxiety disorder, which is not a rateable physical disability.  
 

15.  Under Article 17-A, the VA’s decision to back-date his disability rating to 
his  date  of  discharge  is  not  determinative  of  whether  the  Coast  Guard  should  have 
awarded him a 50-percent disability rating.  The Court of Federal Claims has held that 
“[d]isability ratings by the Veterans Administration and by the Armed Forces are made 
for different purposes.  The Veterans Administration determines to what extent a vet-
eran’s earning capacity has been reduced as a result of specific injuries or combination 
of injuries. . . .  The Armed Forces, on the other hand, determine to what extent a mem-
ber has been rendered unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating 
because of a physical disability. . . .  Accordingly, Veterans Administration ratings are 
not  determinative  of  issues  involved  in  military  disability  retirement  cases.”    Lord  v. 
United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (198x).  Therefore, in light of the medical evidence and 
applicable law, the Board finds that the Coast Guard did not err or commit injustice by 
not diagnosing the applicant with schizophrenia in 198x. 
 

 

 

16. 

The applicant later argued that the Coast Guard should have diagnosed 
his  pituitary  problems,  which,  he  alleged,  may  have  caused  his  psychotic  symptoms.  
However, the applicant did not prove that there was anything wrong with his pituitary 
gland when he left the Coast Guard in 198x.  His panhypopituitarism, empty sella syn-
drome, and possible pituitary tumor were not detected until 1993.  Moreover, at least 
one of his doctors hypothesized that his pituitary problems may have been caused by 
the heavy doses of antipsychotic medicine prescribed him by the VA in the late 1980s.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  or  committed  injustice  by  not  diagnosing  his 
pituitary problems in 198x. 
 
 
It is apparent from the record that the applicant has suffered greatly from 
medical problems during the past two decades.  However, the Coast Guard’s diagnoses 
and actions in 198x must be judged in light of his medical condition and fitness for duty 
in 198x.  The record does not indicate that in 198x, the Coast Guard committed any error 
or  injustice  in  diagnosing  him  with  phobias  and  personality  disorders,  which  do  not 
constitute  rateable  disabilities,  rather  than  with  schizophrenia;  in  not  diagnosing  his 
pituitary problems, which were not discovered until 1993 and may not have existed in 
198x; or in discharging him due to the condition of his shoulder, rated to be 20-percent 
disabling.  The Coast Guard was not required in 198x to foresee the future and assign 
him disability ratings for medical conditions he would develop years later.  When after 
leaving  active  duty,  a  veteran  becomes  disabled  by  medical  conditions  he  incurred 

17. 

while on active duty, his remedy lies with the Department of Veterans Affairs, not with 
the Coast Guard. 
 

18.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 
John A. Kern 

 

 

 
Charles Medalen