DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-043 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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.  It was dock-
eted on February 26, 1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application.1 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  8,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxxxxxxxx  who  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard  on 
November  1,  199x,  asked  the  Board  to  change  his  retirement  to  a  physical 
disability retirement. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that at the time he retired, he suffered from pustular 
psoriasis on  his  feet and had recently undergone back surgery, a spinal fusion 
laminectomy of L4 and L5 with bone grafting, at xxxxxx.  He alleged that prior to 
his release from xxxxxxxx, he was told he would have to return for two follow-
up appointments.  He was told that he would be notified later to schedule the 

                                                 
1  The applicant filed his application on January 4, 1999.  It was completed upon the receipt of his 
military records on February 26, 1999.  He subsequently requested two 90-day extensions of the 
time  in  which  to  respond  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion.    Therefore,  the  10-month 
deadline for his case expires on June 20, 2000.  

follow-up visits.  The  applicant alleged that  he was retired before he was ever 
contacted for the appointments. 

 
The applicant alleged that since that time he has lived in agonizing pain.  
He  alleged  that  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  found  him  to  have 
been 50 percent disabled since the date of his retirement, 40 percent due to his 
back problem and 10 percent due to his psoriasis.  He alleged that he has also 
recently “been diagnosed with two pre-existing conditions:  shortness of breath 
and an eye problem called floaters, which will eventually require surgery.” 

 
The applicant alleged that he did not discover he should have been given 
a physical disability retirement until December 1998, when someone in the Coast 
Guard told him so.   

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant submitted his military and DVA medical records in support 
of his application.  Records from the 1970s and 1980s show that he suffered from 
lower back pain and pain and numbness in his legs. 
 
12/5/9x  The applicant underwent xrays and testing due to his chronic lower 
back  pain.    He  was  diagnosed  with  “displacement  of  the  posterior 
longitudinal ligament,” “hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum and 
apophyseal fact joints,” and “spinal stenosis at the L4-L5 level.” 

 
12/12/9x  The  applicant  sought  treatment  for  pustular  lesions  on  his  feet  and 

was diagnosed with pustular psoriasis. 

 
2/25/9x  The applicant sought treatment for pustular lesions on his feet, which 

he reported had existed for about three months. 

 
4/24/9x  The applicant underwent a physical examination in anticipation of his 
scheduled retirement on November 1, 199x.  The report of the appli-
cant’s  physical  examination  (SF-88)  indicates  that  Dr.  x,  a  physician 
for  the  U.S.  Public  Health  Service,  found  that  the  applicant  had 
pustules on his feet and decreased flexion and extension in his spine.  
A  CAT  scan  revealed  that  the  applicant  had  spinal  stenosis  in  the 
lumbar region (L7 to L5) secondary to a central herniated disc.  Dr. x 
noted that the applicant had been evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon 
at xxxxx and was scheduled to have corrective surgery in July.   

 
7/26/9x  The applicant was admitted to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for surgery.  
He  reported  a  history  of  increasing  chronic  lower  back  pain  since 

 
8/5/9x 

 

197x, when he was involved in a boat rescue that required heavy lift-
ing.  He also reported shooting pains in his left leg and hypesthesia 
(decreased sensitivity) in his right thigh.  A physician found that he 
had a full range of motion, but his back was “tender in the midline at 
L4 to S1.”  Xrays indicated that he had “spondylosis at the L4 L5 disc 
space.  It is also noted to be hypertrophic facets bilaterally.” 

Prior to the applicant’s discharge, Dr. y, in the Orthopedic Service at 
xxxxxxxxxxx, reported that the applicant had undergone a  

posterior spinal fusion from the level of L4 to L5. …  The patient tolerated 
the procedure well and had a fairly normal post operative course.  He was 
ambulating on his 3rd day.  A Dermatology Consult was obtained regarding 
the  lesions  on  his  feet.    He  was  rendered  the  diagnosis  of  palma  plantar 
pustulosis  of  both  feet.  …    At  the  time  of  discharge,  the  patient  did  not 
complain and is ambulating with difficulty.  He reports that his leg pain has 
disappeared  as  so  with  the  sensory  changes  in  his  right  lower  extremity.  
He’s  being  discharged  to  his  duty  station  at  the  Coast  Guard  in  xxxxxxx 
with the recommendation for 30 days of convalescent leave. … The patient 
is instructed to wear the Jewel extension brace with day to day activity and 
whenever he is up and walking about.  It is recommended that he be placed 
on  30  days  of  convalescent  leave  from  his  home  duty  station.  …  He  is  to 
follow-up in the Orthopedic Spine Clinic at the end of his convalescent leave 
for a post operative evaluation. 

 
8/12/9x  The  applicant  had  his  surgical  staples  removed  by  a  doctor  at  the 
Coast Guard base in xxxxxx.  He complained of “mild incision tender-
ness.” 

 
9/27/9x  Dr. x added a note to the applicant’s SF-88 indicating that in July 199x, 
he  had  undergone  “posterior  spinal  fusion  L4-L5  with  steel  plate 
instrumentation” at xxxxxxxx.  Dr. x wrote that the applicant’s “post 
operative  course  has  been  uneventful”  and  recommended  that  he 
have an “orthopedic follow-up” in January 199x.  He marked on the 
SF-88 that the applicant was qualified for retirement. 

 
9/30/9x  The  applicant  was  informed  of  Dr.  x’s  findings  and  asked  to  sign  a 
statement indicating his agreement or disagreement with the findings.  
The  applicant  signed  a  statement  indicating  that  he  agreed  with  the 
doctor’s findings and did not wish to submit a statement in rebuttal. 

 
10/1/9x  A health services technician in the administrative office at the appli-
cant’s command reviewed the SF-88 and marked on it that the appli-
cant  did  “meet  the  physical  standards  for  …  retirement  …  as  pre-

scribed  in  Section  3-C  of  the  CG  Medical  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M6000.1).”  

 
11/1/9x  The  applicant  was  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard,  having  completed 

over 20 years of active duty. 

 
11/21/9x  The applicant applied for disability compensation from the DVA. 
 
2/28/9x  The DVA granted the applicant service connection for his back prob-
lems and psoriasis.  He received a 20-percent disability rating for his 
back problems as of the date of his retirement and a 0-percent disabil-
ity rating for his psoriasis.  The DVA’s report states the following: 

General  medical examination revealed  lumbar forward flexion 75 degrees, 
backward 20 degrees, with 20 degrees lateral defluxion. … For three months 
following  the  July  19,  199x,  surgical  procedure,  he  reported  improvement.  
However,  in  the  last  three  months,  he  has  suffered  a  recurrence  of  symp-
toms, including back stiffness with pain radiating to the legs. … 
 
Examination revealed bilateral multiple petechiae and pustules, with scaling 
in the medial arches of the feet in the plantar surfaces. …  General medical 
examination revealed some evidence of scabbing on the soles of both feet. 

 

 

 
3/25/9x  The applicant’s DVA claim was reopened.  Based on outpatient treat-
ment reports from December 24, 199x, to March 30, 199x, his disability 
rating for his back was increased to 40 percent and his disability rating 
for his psoriasis was increased to 10 percent, for a combined total of 50 
percent.  In addition, these ratings were back-dated to the date of his 
retirement  because  the  conditions  were  determined  to  have  been 
chronic and continuous since his release from military service. 

 
8/6/9x 

Based on outpatient treatment reports from the DVA Medical Center 
in xxxxx, the DVA renewed the applicant’s 40-percent disability rating 
for his back problem and 10-percent disability rating for his psoriasis, 
for a combined disability rating of 50 percent.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel  
 

On November 5, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommend-

ed that the Board deny the applicant the requested relief.  

 
The Chief Counsel first argued that the Board should deny relief because 
the applicant “failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed either an error or 

an injustice that would merit the waiver of the Statute of Limitations.”  Accord-
ing to the Chief Counsel, the applicant “was or should have been aware of … the 
nature of his discharge and the particulars of his medical condition … no later 
than the date of his retirement.  Therefore, Applicant submitted his application 
more than five (5) years after the Statute of Limitations expired.”  Furthermore, 
the Chief Counsel argued, under Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. 
Cir. 1995), a cursory review of the evidence indicates that the applicant has failed 
to  “present[]  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  finding  that  it  would  be  in  the 
interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  failure  to  file  [his  application  to  the  BCMR] 
timely.”  

 
Should  the  Board  decide  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  Chief 
Counsel argued that it should deny relief for lack of merit.  Citing Article 1.A. of 
the PDES Manual, he stated that “[t]he law that provides for physical disability 
retirement  or  separation  and  associated  benefits  (Chapter  61,  Title  10,  United 
States Code) is designed to compensate members whose military service is ter-
minated due to a service connected disability, and to prevent the arbitrary sepa-
ration  of  individuals  who  incur  disabling  injuries.”    Furthermore,  he  argued, 
under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 and Article 2.C.2.a. of the PDES Manual, “[t]he sole basis 
for a physical disability determination in the Coast Guard is unfitness to perform 
duty.”  Article 2.C.2.b. of the PDES Manual, he stated, expressly “prohibit[s] use 
of this authority to bestow compensation benefits on those who are retiring or 
separating and have continued on unlimited active duty while tolerating impair-
ments that have not actually precluded Coast Guard service.”  The Chief Counsel 
further argued that “strong evidence” of error or injustice would be required to 
rebut the legal presumption that officers have carried out their duties correctly, 
lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (1992); 
Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

 
Under Article 2.C.2.b.1., the Chief Counsel argued, “[c]ontinued perform-
ance of duty until a service member is scheduled for separation or retirement for 
reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fitness for duty. 
…    If  the  evidence  establishes  that  service  members  adequately  performed  the 
duties of their office, grade, rate or rating until the time they were referred for 
physical evaluation, they might be considered fit for duty even though medical 
evidence indicates they have impairments.” 

 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant  “has not presented any evi-
dence that he was unable to fulfill his duties while on active duty prior to and 
coincident  with  his  voluntary  retirement.”    The  applicant’s  “record  does  not 
refute the presumption that he performed his duties in a highly satisfactory man-
ner during his career up to and including the time of his retirement.”  The Chief 
Counsel alleged that the applicant’s “back condition did not prevent [him] from 

adequately fulfilling his duties in his assigned grade or position.  Therefore, there 
was no basis to evaluate him under PDES for a physical disability retirement nor 
was there any legal basis to medically retire the Applicant.”   

 
The Chief Counsel also argued that, under Lord v. United States, 2 Ct. Cl. 
749, 754 (1983), disability ratings awarded by the DVA “are not determinative of 
the  issues  involved  in  military  disability  retirement  cases.  …    The  DVA  deter-
mines to what extent a veteran’s earning capacity has been reduced as a result of 
specific  injuries  or  combinations  of  injuries.    The  Armed  Forces,  on  the  other 
hand, determine to what extent a member has been rendered unfit to perform the 
duties  of  his  rate  and  specialty  …  because  of  a  physical  disability.”  The  Chief 
Counsel alleged that applicant’s DVA rating does not prove that he was unfit to 
perform  his  assigned  duties  when  he  was  retired  in  199x.    The  Chief  Counsel 
concluded  that  the  applicant’s  voluntary  retirement  was  neither  erroneous  nor 
unjust and that “[a]ny long-term diminution in his earning capacity attributable 
to his military service is properly a matter for determination by the [DVA].” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On November 9, 1999, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief 
Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The 
applicant requested two 90-day extensions and responded on April 12, 2000. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  one  of  the  people  who  signed  his  “discharge 
physical” just two days before his retirement told him that he should have his 
case reviewed by a medical board. 
 

APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 

 
Disability Retirement Statute 
 
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1201(a), “[u]pon a determination by the Secretary con-
 
cerned that a member [entitled to basic pay] is unfit to perform the duties of the 
member’s  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  physical  disability  incurred 
while entitled to basic pay … the Secretary may retire the member, with retired 
pay computed under section 1401 of this title, if the Secretary also makes the de-
terminations with respect to the member and that disability specified in subsec-
tion (b).”  
 
Provisions of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 

Article 12.B.6.a. requires enlisted members to undergo a physical exami-
nation at least six months prior to their retirement.  Article 12.B.6. also provides 
the following: 

 
b. 
When the physical examination is completed and the member 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. …   
 
c. 
When a member makes an objection to the findings of being physically 
qualified for separation, Standard Form 88 together with the written objections of 
the  member  concerned  will  be  forwarded  immediately  to  Commandant  …  for 
review.  If necessary the member may be retained in service beyond the date of 
expiration of enlistment under authority of article 12-B-11i. … 
 
d. 
examination for separation, the procedures outlined herein shall be followed: 

When  disqualifying  physical  or  mental  impairments  are  found  upon 

• • • 

(3) 

If the member … is being discharged for reasons other than expi-
ration of enlistment, and the physical or mental impairment is deemed to be of a 
permanent nature, a medical board shall be held in accordance with chapter 17 
and the member shall be retained in service in accordance with article 12-B-11i. 

 
Provisions of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) 

 
According to Article 3.B.3.a.(1) of the Medical Manual, 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.”  
Article 3.F. lists medical conditions that “are normally disqualifying” for admin-
istrative retirement from the Service.  Persons with “listed conditions or defects 
(and any other not listed) considered disqualifying shall be referred to an Initial 

Medical Board … .”  Among those conditions listed in Article 3.F. are extensive, 
uncontrollable psoriasis and a herniated disc with “[m]ore than mild symptoms 
following  appropriate  treatment  or  remediable  measures,  with  sufficient  objec-
tive  findings  to  demonstrate  interference  with  the  satisfactory  performance  of 
duty.” 
 
According to Article 3.B.5., which is entitled “Objection to Assumption of 

Fitness for Duty at Separation,” 

 
[a]ny  member  undergoing  separation  from  the  service  who  disagrees  with  the 
assumption of fitness for duty and claims to have a physical disability as defined 
in  section  2-A-38  of  COMDTINST  M1850.2  (series),  Physical  Disability  Evalua-
tion  System,  shall  submit  written  objections,  within  10  days  of  signing  the 
Chronological  Record  of  Service  (CG-4057),  to  Commander  [Military  Personnel 
Command]. . . . 
 
.  .  .  Commander  [Military  Personnel  Command]  will  evaluate  each  case  and, 
based upon information submitted, take one of the following actions: 
 
(1) 
fied and the normal separation process completed; 
 
(2) 
returned and appropriate action recommended; or 
 
(3) 
 
According to Article 3.B.6., which is entitled “Separation Not Appropriate 

request additional documentation before making a determination. 

find  separation  inappropriate,  in  which  case  the  entire  record  will  be 

find separation appropriate, in which case the individual will be so noti-

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 mem-
ber is suitable for separation. 
 
Article 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 interferes with the perform-
ance 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.  Mem-
bers considered temporarily or permanently unfit for duty shall be referred to an 
Initial Medical Board for appropriate disposition. 

 
Provisions of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2B)  
 
 
ability.   Article 2.C.2. of the PDES Manual states the following: 

The PDES Manual governs the separation of members due to physical dis-

 
b. 
The law that provides for disability retirement or separation (Chapter 61, 
Title 10, U.S. Code) is designed to compensate members whose military service is 
terminated due to a physical disability that has rendered the member unfit for 
continued  duty.    That  law  and  this  disability  evaluation  system  are  not  to  be 
misused to bestow compensation benefits on those who are voluntarily or man-
datorily retiring or separating and have theretofore drawn pay and allowances, 
received promotions, and continued on unlimited active duty status while toler-
ating physical impairments that have not actually precluded Coast Guard serv-
ice.  The following policies apply. 
 
   (1) 
Continued performance of duty until a service member is scheduled for 
separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability creates a pre-
sumption of fitness for duty.  This presumption may be overcome if it is estab-
lished by a preponderance of the evidence that: 
 
 
to perform adequately the duties of office, grade, rank or rating; or 
 
 
acute, grave illness or injury, or other deterioration of the mem-
ber’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with proc-
essing  for  separation  or  retirement  for  reasons  other  than  physical  disability 
which rendered the service member unfit for further duty. 
 
Service  members  who  are  being  processed  for  separation  or  retirement 
    (2) 
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. 
 
c. 
If  the  evidence  establishes  that  service  members  adequately  performed 
the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating until the time they were referred 
for physical evaluation, they might be considered fit for duty even though medi-
cal evidence indicates they have impairments. 

the service member, because of disability, was physically unable 

(a) 

(b) 

 
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.  The application was timely. 
 

• • • 

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 justification for, or entitlement to, separation or 
retirement from military service because of physical disability.  Although a mem-
ber 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 

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years after 
the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.  10  U.S.C.  §  1552.  The 
record indicates that the applicant knew or should have known the terms of his 
retirement  when  he  signed  and  received  his  separation  form,  DD 214,  in  199x.  
Thus, his application was untimely by more than four years. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-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).  Because a cursory review of the applicant’s records 
indicates that he underwent an operation on his spine three months prior to his 
retirement and the DVA has assigned him a 50-percent disability rating since the 
date of his retirement, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive 
the statute of limitations in this case. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 According  to  Article  3.F.  of  the  Medical  Manual,  if  a  member  is 
found to have a “disqualifying” physical impairment during a medical examina-
tion,  a  medical  board  “shall”  be  held  to  determine  the  member’s  disposition.  
However,  Article  3.B.6.  states  that  the  Coast  Guard  shall  convene  a  medical 
board for members with disqualifying impairments who are being separated for 
reasons other than a disability only if the requirements of Article 2.C.2.b. of the 
PDES Manual are met.  That article requires members to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that they are not fit for duty because of a disability.  It also 
states  that  members  who  are  being  processed  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 per-
form the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.”  The record indicates that 
the  applicant  was  processed  for  retirement  in  199x  because  he  had  completed 
over 20 years of active service and not because he was physically unable to per-
form his duties.  Therefore, the Board finds that, to prove that the Coast Guard 
erred by not convening a medical board to evaluate him for a disability retire-
ment, the applicant must prove that, at the time of his retirement, he had a dis-
qualifying physical impairment which rendered him unfit for duty or his physi-
cal condition reasonably prompted doubt as to his fitness for duty. 

 
5. 

The record indicates that the applicant suffered from psoriasis and 
a herniated disc while on active duty.  Depending on how severe these two con-
ditions  are,  they  may  be  considered  “disqualifying”  physical  impairments  and 
require  a  member’s  evaluation  by  a  medical  board.    COMDTINST  M6000.1B, 
Article 3.F.  The applicant’s physician had examined him and was fully aware of 
these  two  conditions  when  he  found  the  applicant  medically  qualified  for  an 
administrative retirement on September 27, 199x.  Absent strong evidence to the 

contrary, Coast Guard officers are presumed to have executed their duties cor-
rectly, 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.  1979).    Moreover, 
although the Board has authority to correct records reflecting the medical deci-
sions of physicians, it should give great deference to the professional assessment 
of a physician who actually examined a member at the pertinent time in ques-
tion. 

On  September  30,  199x,  a  month  before  his  retirement,  the 
applicant  signed  a  statement  indicating  that  he  agreed  with  his  physician’s 
assessment that he was fit for duty and therefore qualified for an administrative 
retirement.    Moreover,  the  applicant  presented  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  he 
was unable to perform his job during the last two months before his retirement.  

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  initial  post-operative 
recovery was “uneventful.”  On September 27, 199x, his physician examined him 
and  recommended  that  he  have  an  “orthopedic  follow-up”  in  January  199x.  
There is no indication that the applicant sought medical treatment for back pain 
or  severe  psoriasis  after  that  examination  and  prior  to  his  retirement  on 
November 1, 199x.  Furthermore, upon application to the DVA, he reported that 
his condition was improved during the first three months following his surgery 
on July 26, 199x.   

When the DVA initially examined the applicant, it found him to be 
20  percent  disabled  by  his  back  problem  and  0  percent  disabled  by  psoriasis.  
These ratings were later raised to 40 percent and 10 percent, respectively, after it 
was  determined  that  they  were  chronic.    Having  a ratable  disability  under the 
DVA system does not entitle a member of the Coast Guard to a physical disabil-
ity retirement or to a medical board.  Title 10 U.S.C. § 1201(a) provides the mini-
mum statutory requirements a member of the Coast Guard must meet before the 
Secretary  may  award  him  or  her  a  physical  disability  retirement.    The  Coast 
Guard’s  regulations  create  additional  requirements  that  must  be  met  before 
members  are  entitled  to  a  physical  disability  retirement.      Pursuant  to  Article 
2.C.2.i. of the PDES Manual, the fact that the applicant’s conditions are ratable 
disabilities  under  the  DVA  rating  systems  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  [DVA]  determines  to  what  extent  a  veteran’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 member has been 
rendered unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating because 
of a physical disability. . . .  Accordingly, [DVA] ratings are not determinative of 

issues involved in military disability retirement cases.”  Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. 
Ct. 749, 754 (1983). 

Although  the  applicant’s  records  indicate  that  his  medical  condi-
tion worsened in the months after his retirement, the Board’s decision must be 
based on the evidence concerning his health and ability to perform his duty in 
October 199x, just prior to his retirement.  The applicant has not proved by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that in October 199x, he suffered from a disqualify-
ing  physical  condition  that  rendered  him  unfit  for  duty  or  that  his  condition 
“reasonably prompted doubt as to his fitness for duty.”   

 
9. 

 
10. 

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 convening a medical board to evaluate his conditions or by not retiring 
him by reason of physical disability. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

11.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 

The  application  of  retired  XXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 
 
 Pamela M. Pelcovits 

 

 

 
 Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

military record is hereby denied.