DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
 
BCMR Docket 
No. 2000-082 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
    

  FINAL DECISION  

 
ULMER, Deputy Chairman: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10, United States 
Code.    It  was  docketed  on  March  9,  2000,  upon  the  Board's  receipt  of  the  applicant's 
complete application for correction of her military record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant, a XXXXXXXXXXXX in the Reserve asked the Board to correct her 
record to show that she was discharged by reason of physical disability with severance 
pay rather than being released from active duty into the Reserve.  
 

The  final  decision,  dated  February  8,  2001,  is  signed  by  three  duly  appointed 

At  the  time  the  alleged  error  occurred,  the  applicant  was  a  Reserve  officer  on  
active duty.  On December 14, 199X, the applicant was released from active duty (not 
discharged) into the Reserve after completing her active duty obligation. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
After serving for approximately five years in the Army, on August 9, 199X, the 
 
applicant  enlisted  for  four  years  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  as  a  candidate  for  a 
commission  as  an  officer.    After  completing  officer  candidate  school  (OCS),  she 
attended,  but  failed  to  complete,  flight  school.  However,  before  beginning  flight 
training, she signed a statement acknowledging, in part, the following: 
 

I understand that I incur five years of obligated service upon completion 
of flight school.  This obligation is with my consent and is in addition to 
any other contractual agreement under which I may be serving.  Further, I 
will be released from active duty at the end of all my obligated service unless I 
have integrated into the Regular Coast Guard.  (Emphasis added.) 

 

 

 
After being disenrolled from flight training, the applicant was assigned to duty 
as a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  According to the applicant, her problems began 
when she requested an assignment to a cutter.  During her meeting with the executive 
officer (XO) to discuss her request for an afloat assignment, the applicant's use of the 
anti-depressant  Zoloft  was  brought  up  for  discussion  by  the  XO.    The  applicant  was 
later informed that she had to undergo a medical board before she would be allowed to 
go to sea. 
 
 
The  applicant  underwent  an  initial  medical  board  (IMB)  that  found  her  fit  for 
duty.    However,  she  has  alleged  that  it  was  not  authorized  by  regulation.    In  this 
regard, she stated that nothing in Coast Guard regulations called for a medical board 
solely for the use of an antidepressant (Zoloft) in treating a physical condition.  Zoloft 
was prescribed to treat the applicant for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).1 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  when  the  medical  board  process  began  in  February 
 
199X, she thought that she would have been discharged before the end of her obligated 
service on December 14, 199X.  She further stated as follows:  
 

 I . . . did not expect that CG officials would . . . invoke [the]  presumption 
in the medical instruction – clearly intended to prevent a medical board 
from ever being initiated, nor to suspend them mid-stream for the fiscal 
convenience  of  the  government  –  to  dodge  making  a  clear-cut  decision 
and  avoid  dealing  with  the  central  issues  of  medical  science,  fiscal 
conservatism, public safety and due process that I had raised.  Even after 
both  I  and  my  .  .  .  CO  [commanding  officer]  tried  to  point  out  that  the 
medical  board  was  improperly  initiated,  done  without  my  ever  being 
examined by a physician . . . and that I was willing to stay in the CG if 
cleared  for  operational  assignments  as  evidenced  by  my  June  1999 
extension,2 we continued to face officials in an entrenched position rather 
than  a  real  review  process  to  work.    I  never  expected  to  find  myself 
without  both  a  job  and  compensation  after  15  years  of  solid  service 
because  I  tried  to  convince  the  Coast  Guard  that it did not need to lose 
productive, committed people in my initial circumstances.    

 
Initial Medical Board 
 
                                                 
1  CFS  is  defined  in  the  Merck  Manual  as  a  long-standing  severe  fatigue  without  substantial  muscle 
weakness and without proven psychologic or physical causes. 
 
2  Enclosure (1) to the Coast Guard's advisory opinion indicates that on September 20, 1999,  Coast Guard 
letter  1851,  informed  the  applicant  that  she  was  fit  for  full  duty  and  also  approved  her  voluntary, 
unqualified  resignation  from  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard  scheduled  for  December  14,  1999.    Enclosure  (1) 
further states that pursuant to Article 12.A.7.B of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual . . . "Reserve officers 
not serving under active duty agreements and who have no outstanding obligation for continued active 
service will be released automatically to inactive duty when their period of active duty expires." 
 

The IMB listed the applicant's medical evaluations, as follows: 

On February 25, 199X, an IMB was held in the applicant's case and it was signed 
by  two  officers  of  the  Public  Health  Service.    The  physician  who  prepared  the  IMB 
wrote that the applicant "was evaluated on an ambulatory basis . . . with the diagnosis 
of mild depression associated with hypersomnia, decreased ability to concentrate, and 
chronic  fatigue."    The  physician  wrote  that  the  applicant's  hypersomnia  and  fatigue 
began during her teenage years and that she had incurred some career failures due to 
her  ability  to  concentrate.    He  also  stated  that  the  applicant  has  suffered  two  closed 
head injuries, one in 198X and one in 198X.  The Coast Guard granted the applicant a 
waiver for the closed head injury in 199X based on normal neurologic examination. 
 
 
 
In November 199X, an infectious disease specialist prescribed Zoloft for the applicant's 
fatigue  and  hypersomnia.    The  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  Cat  Scratch  Disease  in 
198X.    The  infectious  disease  specialist  thought  this  could  be  the  cause  of  her 
hypersomnia and fatigue.    
 
In June 199X, the applicant was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having Axis I-depression 
in remission secondary to Zoloft and Axis III – Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. 
 
In July 199X, the applicant underwent a sleep analysis report, which revealed no apnea 
or snoring and noted the presence of alpha intrusion and an overall pattern of normal 
sleep.   
 
On  February  24,  199X,  a  psychologist  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  "a  general 
medical condition, affecting mood" and advised a neuropsychiatric consultation.   
 
 
 

 

 

The IMB physician made the following findings: 

[The  applicant]  has  experienced  control  of  symptoms  from  Zoloft  (100 
mg  each  morning).    She  has  suffered  no  significant  side  effects.    She 
reports  a  normal  sleep  pattern  without  hypersomnia.    The  chronic 
fatigue  no  longer  exists.    She  has  no  difficulty  with  maintaining  her 
concentration.  All benefit has been maintained since the introduction of 
Zoloft on 08Feb98.   
 
It is the opinion of the Board that the diagnosis of the patient is based 
upon  several  symptoms. 
  The  unifying  concept  of  hypersomnia, 
decreased ability to concentrate, chronic fatigue is mild depression.  This 
condition  has  many  confounding  variables  such  as  a  traumatic 
childhood, Cat Scratch Disease, and two separate Closed Head Injuries.  
The patient has responded to therapy and remains open to the various 
non-medicinal options.  She is fit for full duty. 

After  the  Medical  Board  met,  the  applicant  underwent  a  neuropsychological 
evaluation on April 2, 199X.  The consultation report offered the following diagnoses:  
"Axis  I  .  .  .  Occupational  Problem  [,]  Axis  II  No  Condition  [,  and]  Axis  III  Chronic 
Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia3 (by record)".  
 
 
On  May  5,  199X,  the  applicant  rebutted  the  IMB  in  which  she  objected  to  its 
findings.  She stated that the Coast Guard violated its regulations in convening the IMB 
and denied her due process.  She stated that even if she were retained on active duty,  
she would not request a further extension.   
 
 
The applicant also stated in her rebuttal, that there were several critical flaws in 
the manner in which the Coast Guard system deals with individuals taking Zoloft.  The 
applicant described those flaws, as follows: 
 

-"Though my medical condition – CFS – is not listed any where in the medical 
standards for retention . . . I do find it relevant that narcolepsy, symptoms of which are 
even more dramatic and mission-endangering than CFS if untreated, is mentioned. [The 
Medical Manual] indicates that narcolepsy may precipitate a board and disqualify one 
for retention 'when attacks are not controlled by medication.'  It would seem logical to 
regard  CFS  in  a  similar  light  .  .  .  .  The  only  difference  appears  to  be  in  the  type  of 
medication prescribed for the two conditions:  For CFS it is typically an antidepressant, 
while for narcolepsy it is Ritalin, which is not classified as an antidepressant, but as a 
psychotherapeutic agent."  
 

-"CFS is not an affective (mood) disorder under paragraph 16.b. [of the Medical 
Manual].  It is a general medical condition (GMC) that would go under paragraph 15 if 
included  in  the  regulation  at  all.    However,  16.b  is  the  section  the  medical  officer 
conducting my board has pointed to in trying to justify the direction he was given by 
his  superiors  at  CGPC-adm  to  conduct  a  board  on  me  because  of  my  known  use  of 
Zoloft.  Though depression is a common symptom/result of CFS, and I have certainly 
suffered  from  it,  it  is  not  my  primary  diagnosis,  nor  have  I  been  "recurrently 
hospitalized"  for  it.  .  .  .    [T]he  only  explanation  I  can  come  up  with  for  potentially 
discharging a member under . . . paragraph [16.b.] if taking a Zoloft tablet once a day is 
construed to be "recurrent treatment. . . .. " 
 
-"I DO NOT HAVE DEPRESSION.  The report prepared by the neuropsychology clinic 
[dated April 2, 199X] . . . rebuts the supposed diagnosis of depression.  Yet a primary 
diagnosis of "mild depression" is what the medical officer came up with in his attempt 
to "help" me "beat" the board.  [The IMB physician] knew the neuropsychology report 
was  in  progress  but  he  chose  to  write  up  the  [IMB]  without  waiting  for  a  copy of it.  
Apparently  virtually  100%  of  those  members  in  situations  similar  to  mine  have  been 
discharged and the Coast Guard doctor felt my only chance of staying on active duty 
                                                 
3 Fibromyalgia is a group of common nonarticular disorders characterized by achy pain, tenderness, and 
stiffness of muscles, areas of tendon insertions, and adjacent soft tissue structures.  See the Merck Manual. 
 

lay in convincing CGPC-adm that my use of Zoloft had been short-term and likely to 
end soon.  I told him numerous times I did not want to stop taking the medication that 
had helped me greatly in coping with my medical condition despite producing nightly 
nightmares (another fact that was glossed over in the board narrative); nor did I want to 
beat the board – I wanted to stop it. . . . "  
 

-"[T]he regulation on medical boards . . . lays out the triggering mechanisms for 
convening an initial medical board (IMB).  None of them are remotely applicable in my 
case;  it  was  only  the  authority  improperly  assumed  by  CGPC-adm  that  caused  this 
board to be started.   I never even met the medical officer in person, let alone received a 
"thorough physical examination" conducted by him as paragraph 3-F-1 [of the Physical 
Disability  Evaluation  Manual  (PDES)]  requires,  and  though  signed  by  two  medical 
officers,  only  one  was  involved  in  the  actual  process  of  producing  the  board.    The 
presumption  of  regularity  typically  afforded  organizations  following  their  own 
regulations is further rebutted by the standard Coast Guard practice of including xerox 
copies  of  pertinent  consultations  with  a  board  narrative.    Not  only  are  they  not 
necessarily  legible  as  required  by  paragraph  3.G.1.d.  [of  the  PDES  Manual],  but 
paragraph  3.G.2  clearly  states  that  "pertinent  consultations,  in  particular,  shall  be 
presented in typewritten form." 
 

-"[I]f the Coast Guard is willing to send its members to Department of Defense 
(DoD)  medical  facilities,  it  must  be  willing  to  consider  applying  DoD  standards  in 
certain cases such as this one.  My Air Force Doctor at the infectious diseases clinic at . . .  
XXXXXXXXX    feels  terrible  that  putting  me  on    medication  that  does  not  trigger 
discharge in his service has so undermined my future in the Coast Guard, while I feel 
that the Coast Guard squarely bears the burden for such disconnects between our two 
medical systems."  
 
-"I  keep  wondering  what  yellow  line  I'll  cross  and whose family I will kill when I've 
been 'weaned' off of Zoloft for the sake of my Coast Guard career.  That is a choice I 
cannot  accept,  and  so  it's  time  for  me  to  hang  up  my  Coast  Guard  blue.    But  I  will 
continue to fight that others do not have to make that sacrifice."   
 
Review by the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) 
 
 
The  applicant's  medical  board  along  with  her  rebuttal  was  forwarded  to  the 
CPEB for determination.  The CPEB met on May 21, 199X and found the applicant fit for 
full duty.  It provided the following amplifying statement: 
 

Coast Guard policy requires that a medical board be convened "[I]n any 
situation where fitness for continuation of active duty is in question."  The 
CPEB  may  order  a  Disposition  Medical  Board  (DMB),  if  the  evaluee's 
condition  or  impairments  are  not  sufficiently  resolved  to  make  a  final 
determination  or  recommendation  as  to  fitness  for  duty.    The  evaluee's 
expiration of obligated active service is December 199X.  In rebuttal to the 

medical board, the evaluee reports she does not plan to request extension 
on  active  duty.    The  evaluee  is  not  now  subject  to  normal  unrestricted 
world-wide reassignment afloat or ashore.  A military member scheduled 
for non-disability separation and performing assigned duties adequately 
is presumed fit for duty even though the medical evidence indicates he or 
she has impairments.   
 
Opinion:  Evaluee's symptoms and provisional diagnoses, as well as long-
term  use  of  and  apparent  therapeutic  response  to  anti-depressant 
medication, clearly justify convening a medical board.  This record does 
not clearly support separation by reason of disability at this time, nor does 
the  record  clearly  demonstrate 
for  duty  and  worldwide 
deployability.  The evaluee is performing adequately in her current duties, 
and  will  not  be  reassigned  to  a  new  duty  station.    A  DMB  to  narrow, 
substantiate,  or  rule  out  specific  diagnoses  is  not  now  appropriate.   
Presumption  of  the  evaluee's  fitness  for  duty  now  exists,  and  the 
presumption is not overcome.  The evidence of record, while giving rise to 
reasonable  questions  regarding  the  evaluee's  fitness  and  deployability, 
does  not  overcome  the  presumption  of  fitness  that  applies  to  members 
scheduled for separation.  Should the evaluee request and be approved for 
retention,  or  otherwise  voluntarily  extend  her  military  service,  a  new 
Initial  Medical  Board  should  be  convened  by  competent  authority,  in 
accordance with Coast Guard policy.  

fitness 

 

 
 
The applicant submitted a letter along with the April 2, 199X neuropsychological 
consultation,  dated  June  14,  199X,  rebutting  the  findings  and  recommendation  of  the 
CPEB.  She requested that her case be forwarded to a disposition medical board (DMB) 
"in light of additional medical concerns regarding my health and my decision to request 
extension on active duty."   She informed the CPEB that she had never been examined 
by a physician as part of the disability evaluation process.   
 
The applicant further stated as follows:  "Very little work was done at the time of 
  
my chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) diagnosis in early 199X to rule out other diseases 
and  conditions.    Especially  because  I  fit  the  patient  profile  so  well,  and  I  found  the 
Zoloft  prescribed  by  my  XXXXXXX  doctor  to  work  in  reducing  the  most  disturbing 
symptom  –  extreme  fatigue  –  I  was  content  to  leave  it  at  that.    However,  in  the past 
month I have become increasingly concerned between CFS, fibromyalgia, and Crohn's 
disease."  She stated that even though she had had two surgeries for XXXXXXXXXX, she 
was not aware at that time that recurring XXXXXX are a sign of Chron's disease.4  She 
also stated that the alpha wave intrusion detected during her sleep study is one of the 
indicators of fibromyalgia. The applicant's medical record contains entries with respect 
to the surgeries for the fistulas and the neuropsychologist diagnosed the applicant as 
having fibromyalgia. The applicant's CO supported her request for a DMB. 
                                                 
4  Crohn's disease is an inflammation at various sites in the GI tract.  It may cause diarrhea, which may be 
severe profuse and bloody.  See the Merck Manual. 

On  July  14,  199X,  the  PRC  concurred  with  the  CPEB's  findings  and 

 
 
On  June  30,  199X,  the  Commander  of  the  Coast  Guard  Military  Personnel 
Command (CGPC) determined that the applicant's rebuttal was insufficient to support a 
change to the CPEB's findings and recommendation.  The CPEB was forwarded to the 
Physical Review Council (PRC) for review.   
 
 
recommended disposition. 
 
 
On August 9, 199X, the CGPC  approved the findings and recommendation of 
the CPEB.  He stated that "[p]ursuant to the authority contained in 49 C.F.R. § 1.45(a), it 
is  directed  that  [the  applicant]  not  be  retired  or  separated  by  reason  of  physical 
disability."   
 
Proposed Changes to the Medical Manual 
 
 
Due to the efforts of the applicant, the Director of the office of Health and Safety 
has  recommended that the Commandant include in the Medical Manual an adequate 
articulation  of  the  symptoms  and  treatment  associated  with  CFS.    The  proposed 
changes are: 
 
"a.  Section 3-D-39 [of the Medical Manual]:  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, 
and  Myofascial  Pain  syndrome  will  be  listed  as  causes  of  rejection  for  appointment, 
enlistment and induction . . . ."  
 
"b.  Section 3-F-19 [of the Medical Manual]: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, 
and Myofascial Syndrome will be listed in the Miscellaneous Conditions subsection to 
read  Chronic  Fatigue  Syndrome,  Fibromyalgia,  and  Myofascial  Syndrome  when  not 
controlled by medication or with reliably diagnosed depression." 
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
On  September  6,  2000,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard, recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard 
did not have the authority to convene an initial medical board (IMB).  He stated that the 
Coast Guard followed the procedures as required by COMDTINST M1850.2C (Physical 
Disability Evaluation System Manual (PDES)) in convening the IMB.  The Chief Counsel 
stated  that  the  Commandant  convened  the  medical  board  for  the  purpose  of 
determining the applicant's fitness for duty, which was questionable.  See Articles 1.C.1 
and 3.B.1, COMDTINST (PDES Manual) M1850.2C.  An IMB was necessary when the 
Commandant became aware of the applicant's "CFS [and] her use of an antidepressant 
[that] raised an issue of fitness for continuation on active duty . . . ." 
 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  followed  the  regulation  in  the 
PDES  processing  and  the  applicant  received  all  the  due  process  to  which  she  was 
entitled.  In this regard, the Chief Counsel stated that the IMB was composed of two 
medical officers as required; the applicant's mental and physical condition was properly 
evaluated prior to the convening of the IMB; the applicant was properly informed of, 
and  provided  a  copy  of  the  IMB's  findings;  the  applicant  submitted  a  rebuttal  to  the 
IMB; and the applicant's rebuttal received consideration, even though it was submitted 
three  months  late.    The  applicant  was  also  given  the  opportunity  to  review  (with 
assigned counsel) and rebut the CPEB's findings.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant's request that her case be referred to 
a  disposition  medical  board  (DMB)  was  properly  denied.    Article  4.A.7.  of  the  PDES 
states that a DMB may be ordered if the evidence is insufficient for the CPEB to make a 
judgment as to fitness for duty or to rate an impairment.  The Chief Counsel stated that 
in the instant case, the applicant's CPEB concluded that she was fit for duty.  Therefore, 
there was no need for a DMB.  The CPEB finding that the applicant was fit for duty,  
along with the applicant's rebuttal, was sent to the Physical Review Council (PRC) for 
review.  The PRC agreed with the CPEB.   
 

The  Coast  Guard  conceded  that  the  applicant  did  not  receive  a  physical 
examination  by  the  IMB  on  the  convening  date  of  the  Board  as  provided  by  Article 
3.F.1.  of  the  PDES  Manual,    but  he  stated  that  the  applicant's  "extensive  record  of 
evaluations  preceding  the  25  February  199X  convening  date  more  than  adequately 
provided  the  IMB  with  a  clear  and  unambiguous  picture  of  the  applicant's  physical 
condition." 
 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  she  had  a 
physical disability that rendered her unfit for duty, and therefore was not entitled to a 
disability evaluation.  He stated that pursuant to Article 2.C.2.b. of the PDES Manual, 
"[c]ontinued performance 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."  Although such a presumption can be overcome, the Chief Counsel stated that 
the  applicant  failed  to  do  so  by  showing:    "1)  [that  she],  because  of  disability,  was 
physically unable to perform adequately in her assigned duties; or 2) [that] acute, grave 
illness  or  injury,  or  other  deterioration  of  the  [her]  physical  condition  occurred 
immediately  prior  to  or  coincident  with  processing  for  separation  or  retirement  for 
reasons  other  than  physical  disability  which  rendered  the  service  member  unfit  for 
further duty.  Id., Art. 2.C.2.b.(1). "   The Chief Counsel, citing several portions of the 
PDES Manual, further stated as follows:  
 

Service  members  referred  to  an  IMB  for  a  disability  evaluation  shall  be 
found  fit  for  duty  unless  their  physical  condition  reasonably  prompts 
doubt that they are fit to continue to perform adequately in their assigned 
duties.  .  .  .    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 PDES Manual goes on to specify certain standard and criteria that 
will  not  be  used  in  any  determination  for  physical  disability.    Those 
prohibited standards and criteria include 1) the presence of one or more 
physical defects that are sufficient to require referral for evaluation or that 
may be unfitting for service members in a different officer, grade, rank or 
rating, and; 2) pending voluntary separation, retirement, or release from 
active-duty. . . . 

In  the  instant  case,  Applicant  has  not  presented  any  evidence  she  was 
unable  to  fulfill  her  duties  while  on  active-duty  prior  to  and  coincident 
with her IMB or voluntary request for separation from the service.  The 
fact that her medical evaluation records reveal the potential presence of a 
physical  defect  is  immaterial  to  Applicant's  request  for  relief.    Per  the 
PDES  Manual  .  .  .    [a]pplicant  must  show,  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  that  she  was  unable  to  perform  adequately  in  her  assigned 
duties.    The  record  shows  Applicant  performed  her  duties  is  a  highly 
satisfactorily  manner  during  her  tenure  up  to  and  including  the  time  of 
her  separation  from  the  service.    Therefore,  there  was  no  legal  basis  to 
place Applicant on the temporary disability retirement list (TDRL). 

 

On September 28, 2000, the Board received the applicant's response to the views 

 
Applicant's Response to the Coast Guard Views 
 
 
of the Coast Guard.  She disagreed with them.  
 
 
The  applicant stated that the Coast Guard has continued to gloss over the fact 
that she did not have a physical evaluation as part of the IMB.  She stated that "I was 
never evaluated on 25 February 199X in an ambulatory basis at CG Station Corpus 
Christi by two medical officers for purposes of an [IMB]."  She further stated that her 
medical records were not available to the IMB because they were in her possession the 
entire time prior to and at the time of the IMB.  She alleged that "it is a fundamental 
element of the due process required to be afforded a member having a constitutionally 
protected  property  interest  in  continued  employment,  one  I  did  not  receive  despite 
repeated requests." 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  has  experienced  significant  side  effects  from  the 
 
Zoloft, which were denied by the IMB in its report.  In this regard, she stated that the 
Zoloft produces nightmares that are almost as bad as the CFS itself.  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  January  199X  she  wanted  nothing  more  than  a 
successful Coast Guard career, but the stress of fighting this process left her a "basket 

case."  "Accepting discharge was a last ditch effort to save myself and my marriage[.]"  
The applicant further stated as follows: 
 

Had  this  medical  board  been  dropped  when  I  initially  asked  for  that,  I 
would  still  have  believed  my  self  to  be  fully  fit  for  duty  despite  CFS.  
However,  in  mid-199X  my  Coast  Guard  counsel  pointed  out  that  the 
amplifying  statement  accompanying  the  "fully  fit"  board  determination 
reserved  all  the  moves  to  the  medical  staff  at  CGPC,  allowing  them  to 
reinitiate  another  medical  board  the  moment  they  realized  I  had  either 
extended or intended to PCS.  Though I had already applied for extension, 
his  input  renewed  my  fear  that  the  issue,  bogus  to  begin  with,  had  not 
been  fully  laid  to  rest  and  could  continue  to  hurt  my  career,  having 
already  denied  me  the  opportunity  to  go  afloat.    By  August  and 
September as I continued to not receive answers or see action that would 
allow me to make reasonable and informed career moves, I became what I 
would  call  a  "basket  case."    I  was  unable  to  complete  a  prestigious  Air 
Force sponsored internship at Patrick AFB, and had begun to question my 
will to live. . . . 5  
 
[A]sking  for  a  medical  discharge  and  severance  pay,  along  with  a 
complete severing of ties from the Coast Guard does not seem outrageous; 
it strikes me as a non-litigious and fair compromise. 

 
 
The  applicant  submitted  entries  from  her  medical  record  that  show  she  was 
under  a  great  deal  of  stress  during  September  and  October  199X    A  psychologist 
recommended that she receive a period of medical leave. 
 
 
 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.    The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application is timely. 
 
 
33 CFR 52.31.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
3.    The  applicant's  allegation  that  the  IMB  was  convened  in  violation  of  Coast 
 
Guard  regulations  is  without  merit.    While  her  illness  may  not  be  one  of  those 
                                                 
5 The applicant's last active duty OER shows that she performed her duties in a very competent manner.  
She received average to above average marks and complimentary comments. 

2.  The Chairman has recommended disposition of this case without a hearing.  

specifically listed in the Medical Manual as disqualifying for retention, Article 3.F.2. of 
the Medical Manual makes it clear that the list of disqualifying conditions is not an all-
inclusive list.  In addition this section states that "listed conditions or defects (and any 
others  not  listed)  considered  as  disqualifying  shall  be  referred  to  an  Initial  Medical 
Board."   
 
 
4.  Under  Articles  1-D-1  and  3-B-1  of  the  PDES  Manual,  the  Commandant  may 
convene  a  medical  board.    Article  1-D-1  states  that  "a  member  is  introduced  into  the 
PDES when a commanding officer  (or medical officer or higher authority. . .) questions 
an individual's fitness for continued duty due to physical and/or mental impairments 
and directs that a medical board be convened. . .."  The IMB in this case was ordered by 
CGPC  (on  behalf  of  the  Commandant),  a  higher  authority,  and  as  such,  it  was  in 
accordance with the PDES Manual.  To limit the Commandant's authority in this regard 
would interfere with his responsibility to maintain a vital and fit military organization.  
The  Board  finds  that  the  higher  authority  acted  within  the  regulation  in  ordering  an 
IMB  to  determine  the  applicant's  fitness  for  duty  once  it  became  known  that  she 
suffered from CFS and was taking the drug Zoloft, an antidepressant. 
 
 
5.  The applicant was not denied any procedural due process with respect to her 
PDES processing.  She was given an opportunity to review and rebut the medical board 
and the CPEB.    
 
 
6.  There is some validity to the applicant's argument that she did not receive the 
benefit  of  a  "thorough  physical  examination  to  evaluate  [her]  general  health"  by  the 
medical board pursuant to Article 3-F-1 of the PDES.  This provision also states that "all 
impairments  noted  shall  be  separately  evaluated,  in  accordance  with  the  "VA 
Physician's  Guide  for  Disability  Evaluation  .  .  ."  The  IMB  physician  wrote  that  the 
applicant was "evaluated on an ambulatory basis at [Air Station Corpus Christi]," but 
such an evaluation is not a physical examination.  
 
 
7.  The Chief Counsel acknowledged that the applicant did not have a physical 
examination  as  part  of  the  medical  board,  but  he  stated  that  the  "extensive  record  of 
evaluation  preceding  the  25  February  199X  convening  date  more  than  adequately 
provided  the  IMB  with  a  clear  and  unambiguous  picture  of  the  applicant's  physical 
condition." The applicant's PDES record contains several reports and evaluations of her 
CFS condition and Zoloft treatment.   
 

8.  However, the applicant complained that she had other medical conditions, in 
addition to the CFS and Zoloft treatment that she was concerned about long-term, such 
as the fistulas and the fibromyalgia. However, the IMB, the CPEB, the CGPC, and the 
PRC  were  aware  of  these  conditions  through  copies  of  entries  from  the  applicant's 
medical  record  and  by  her  rebuttal  to  the  CPEB.    Even  with  the  knowledge  of  these 
other  conditions,  none  of  these  entities  changed  their  findings  or  ordered  a  physical 
examination  of  the  applicant.    The  Board  concludes  that  since  the  medical  personnel 
involved  in  the  PDES  processing  ordered  no  further  medical  examination  of  the 

applicant, particularly after she brought these other conditions to their attention, those 
involved must have determined these conditions (XXXXXX and fibromyalgia) had no 
bearing on the applicant's fitness for duty.   

 
9.    Moreover,  the  applicant  has  not  presented  any  evidence  that  she  had  any 
other  conditions,  not  disclosed  in  her  medical  record,  that  caused  her  to  be  unfit  to 
perform her duties.  If such evidence had been presented to this Board, it might have 
reached  a  different  conclusion  on  the  issue  of  impact  of  the  Coast  Guard's  failure  to 
perform a "thorough physical examination" of the applicant during the PDES process. 
 
 
10.   The applicant alleges that in August/September 199X, the stress created by 
the PDES process caused her CFS to worsen and she became a "basket case."  Therefore, 
she stated that she was not able to complete an Air Force internship. She further noted 
that any attempt to remain in the Coast Guard would probably have resulted in another 
medical board.   However, the applicant did not remain in the Coast Guard and chose 
separation or at least acquiesced in the Coast Guard's expressed intent to separate her at 
the end of her obligated active duty service on December 14, 199X.  Since she continued 
to perform her duties until the time of separation, there is a presumption that she was 
fit for duty.  See Article 3.D.7, PDES Manual.  This presumption can be rebutted by a 
preponderance  of  evidence  showing  that  the  member  was  not  able  to  perform  the 
duties of her office, grade, or rank or that she suffered a grave or other deterioration of 
her  physical  condition  coincident  with  her  processing  for  separation.      The  applicant 
presented  evidence  that  she  suffered  from  increased  stress  during  the  months  of 
September  and  October  199X,  but  she  did  not  submit  medical  evidence showing that 
she suffered from an injury or illness that caused her to be unfit to perform the duties of 
her office, grade, or rank. 
 
 
11.  Moreover, her last performance evaluation for the period August 1, 199X to 
December  14,  199X,  shows  the  applicant  to  have  satisfactorily  performed  her  duties 
until  her  separation.    She  received  average  to  above  average  grades  and  a  very 
complimentary written description of her performance.   
 
 
12.   In conclusion, the Board finds that the Coast Guard properly convened an 
IMB in the applicant's case, and she received all the due process required by regulation.  
The Board further finds that the applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence  that  she  has  been  prejudiced  by  the  Coast  Guard's  failure  to  conduct  a 
"thorough physical examination" of her during the PDES process.  Nor has she shown 
that the Coast Guard's finding that she was fit for duty to be in error or unjust.  The 
applicant  has  also failed to rebut, by a preponderance of the evidence, the fitness for 
duty presumption created by the fact that she satisfactorily performed her duties until 
she was separated from the active duty Coast Guard.    Accordingly, the Board finds no 
basis on which to grant relief.  The applicant's request should be denied. 
 

 
13.    If  the  applicant's  condition  interferes  with  her  ability  to  obtain  and  keep 
civilian employment, she should file a claim with the DVA. Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. 
Ct. 749, 754 (1983).  The applicant stated that she has done this. 
 
14.    The  applicant also indicated a desire to completely sever her ties with the 
 
Coast Guard.  She should request to be discharged from the Coast Guard Reserve, if she 
no longer desires to be a part of this Service.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, 230 13 0661, USCGR, for correction of her 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Laura A. Aguilar 

Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

Astrid Lopez-Goldberg