DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-142 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 June 9, 2000, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s complete appli-
cation.   
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  19,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a formerxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his discharge 
form DD 214 by changing the narrative reason for separation from “personality 
disorder” to some other reason; by changing his Separation Program Designator 
(SPD)  code  from  JFX (involuntary  discharge  due  to  a  personality  disorder  that 
interferes with performance of duty but does not amount to a disability) to one 
that does not reflect a personality disorder; and by upgrading his reenlistment 
code from RE-3G (which means eligible to reenlist except for disqualifying factor; 
waiver required) to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that in 1997, while assigned to a cutter, he experi-
enced significant stress when the cutter was underway.  He alleged that because 
he was better able to deal with the stress when the cutter was in port, he request-
ed a change in rating, but his request was denied.  Therefore, he thought he had 
no other option but to leave the service.  He alleged that while he was awaiting 

separation, he should have been “moved to a more suitable place” and that his 
attempt to hang himself on xxxxxx, “could have been prevented if [his] situation 
was considered.”  He alleged that his suicide attempt was a foolish mistake, “but 
at the time [he] felt it was the only way to end the situation.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the narrative reason for his discharge, “person-
ality disorder,” is erroneous and unjust because after his last appointment with a 
psychiatrist, it was determined that he was “psychiatrically fit for full duty” and 
that he had “no ongoing major mental disorder.”  He alleged that a psychiatrist’s 
report dated December 23, 1997, accurately describes the problems he was expe-
riencing but erroneously states that he had a long history of instability and tem-
per control problems.  He alleged that he saw a “specialist” only twice before he 
entered the Coast Guard and that it was not his personality that was to blame for 
what happened, but the stresses of being underway.  He alleged that his five and 
one-half years of military service and the fact that his job performance justified 
an honorable discharge prove that he had no personality disorder. 
 
 
The applicant further alleged that the narrative reason for discharge on his 
DD 214 are unjust because it “is currently preventing [him] from serving in the 
Reserve  and  may  disqualify  [him]  from  working  as  a  government  employee 
should [he] choose to apply for a position.” 
 

On March 12, 1996, while undergoing physical examination prior to enter-
ing the Coast Guard, the applicant admitted that he had been treated for depres-
sion and stress management in the fall of 1993 when he was still in the Air Force.  
He attributed the depression to difficulties he had had with a girlfriend he was 
living with and denied ever having suicidal thoughts or ideation.  A physician 
determined that his previous condition did not disqualify him from serving on 
active duty. 
 

After joining the Coast Guard, the applicant was first assigned as a xxxxx, 
but then chose to attend “A” School to enter the xxxxxx rating.  After finishing 
school, he was advanced to xxx and assigned to serve on a cutter beginning on 
February 28, 1997.   

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted as a  seaman  in the Coast Guard on xxxxxxx.  He 
had previously completed a four-year enlistment as a fire protection journeyman 
in  the  Air  Force  and  was  released  into  the  Air  Force  Reserve  on  December  5, 
1993.    He  received  an  honorable  discharge  from  the  Air  Force,  with  an  MBK 
separation code; a 1-J reentry code;  and “completion of required active service” 
as his narrative reason for separation. 
 

 
 
On  September  19,  1997,  while  underway  on  the  cutter,  the  applicant 
seemed to suffer an “anxiety attack,” began to cry, and was taken to sickbay by 
the cutter’s chief cook.  The applicant told a health services technician in sickbay 
that he could not handle the stresses of being underway and was desperate to get 
out  of  his rate  (xx).  He  also  stated that  he  had  undergone  stress  management 
therapy  while  in  the  Air  Force;  that  he  was  taking  St.  John’s  wart  and  “Brain 
Pep” to improve his mood without success; and that within the past month he 
had devised a plan of suicide.  He stated that he had not tried to commit suicide 
out  of  consideration  for  his  family  and  because  of  his  religious  beliefs.    The 
health  services  technician  referred  the  applicant  for  psychiatric  evaluation  at 
xxxxxxxx hospital when the cutter entered port on xxxxxxxxx. 
 
On  xxxxxxx,  the  applicant  was  admitted  to  the  hospital  for  psychiatric 
 
evaluation.  He told a psychiatrist that he had been feeling depressed, couldn’t 
“take  it”  anymore,  and  wanted  out.   He  denied  suicidal  ideation but  admitted 
that he had had suicidal ideation when he  and his girlfriend broke up in 1993 
because he had “anger control” problems and drank too much.  He stated that he 
had felt unhappy and frustrated ever since he joined the Coast Guard and that 
lately  his  frustration  had  increased.    The  psychiatrist  found  that  the  applicant 
was suffering from an adjustment disorder, alcohol dependency, and a border-
line  personality  disorder.1    He  also  reported  that  the  applicant  had  “impulse 
control problems with anger conflict.”  He recommended that the applicant be 
returned  to  duty  “to  await  expeditious  administrative  separation”  but  not  be 
allowed access to weapons.  The psychiatrist reported that he would arrange for 
the applicant to receive outpatient therapy while he was awaiting separation.   
                                                 
1    According  to  the  fourth  edition  of  the  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL 
DISORDERS  (DSM-IV),  published  by  the  American  Psychiatric  Association,  a  person  who  has  a 
borderline personality disorder has unstable  interpersonal relationships, affects, and self-image 
and manifests five or more of the following nine symptoms: 
1. 
frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment; 
2.  a  pattern  of  unstable  and  intense  interpersonal  relationships  characterized  by  alternating 

between extremes of idealization and devaluation; 
identity disturbance:  markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self; 
impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, sub-
stance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating); 

3. 
4. 

5.  recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior; 
6.  affective  instability  due  to  a  marked  reactivity  of  mood  (e.g.,  intense  episodic  dysphoria, 

irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days); 

7.  chronic feelings of emptiness; 
8. 

inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, 
constant anger, recurrent physical fights); 
transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms. 

9. 

 

On October 28, 1997, the applicant’s commanding officer notified him that 
he  was  requesting  authority  to  discharge  him  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    He 
informed the applicant that he was recommending an honorable discharge and 
that the applicant had the right to submit a statement on his own behalf and to 
consult with legal counsel.  He also stated that the decision as to what type of 
discharge  the  applicant  would  receive  rested  with  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC). 

 
On October 29, 1997, the applicant signed a statement in response to the 
notification.  He stated that after having considered his situation for a “consider-
able time,” he had “come to the conclusion that [separation is] the best possible 
solution to the problems [he had] been faced with over the past several months.”  
On November 1, 1997, the applicant signed a statement indicating that he did not 
object to being discharged and waived his right to consult legal counsel. 

 
On  November  3,  1997,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  requested 
authority from CGPC to effect his honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability 
due to his diagnosed adjustment disorder and borderline personality disorder. 
 
 
Onxxxxxx , the applicant went to a xxxxxxxx and told an attendant that he 
intended to hang himself from the top with a xxxxx.  He asked the attendant not 
to  let  anyone  else  up  until  he  had  finished.    After  climbing  the  xxxxxx,  he 
contemplated the view and prayed, delaying his attempt at suicide long enough 
for the police to arrive and stop him. 
 

The  applicant  was  promptly  admitted  to  the  Army  Medical  Center  in 
xxxxxxx.  He told a psychiatrist that he had suffered depression twice before fol-
lowing  break-ups  with  two  girlfriends.    He  reported  having  problems  with 
“domestic violence” and “anger control.”  He had once been placed in a “partial 
hospitalization program” and prescribed an antidepressant, but he stopped both 
after a few days because he disliked them and thought they were not working.  
He told the psychiatrist that he had been experiencing depression and suicidal 
ideation  since  he  was  evaluated  on  September  21,  1997,  because  his  command 
had  “failed  to  follow  through”  on  the  recommendations  of  the  psychiatrist  at 
xxxxxxxx  Hospital.    The  psychiatrist  reported  that  the  applicant  “describe[d]  a 
long  history  of  affective  instability,  temper  control  problems,  impulse  control 
problems, pattern of unstable intense interpersonal relationships, identity distur-
bance, recurrent suicidal behavior, chronic feelings of emptiness, etc.”  He diag-
nosed  the  applicant  with  “depressive  disorder,  not  otherwise  specified”  and 
“borderline personality disorder.” 

 

On December 19, 1997, the applicant was discharged from the hospital in 
stable condition with a prescription for Prozac and orders to attend weekly psy-
chotherapy sessions.  The psychiatrist reported that while the applicant was in 
the hospital, his command stated that it was “continuing to pursue the [admin-
istrative] separation from the Coast Guard for his personality disorder but that 
paperwork from psychiatry at xxxxxxx Hospital was illegible, and xxxxxxx could 
not produce another copy so that a new psychiatric examination was necessary.”  
The  psychiatrist  immediately  faxed  his  findings  to  the  command  so  that  they 
could continue processing his administrative discharge.  The applicant told the 
psychiatrist that he was happy to hear he was being discharged.   
 
 
Also  on  December  19,  1997,  CGPC  responded  to  the  applicant’s  com-
manding  officer’s  November  3,  1997,  request  for  authority  to  discharge  him.  
CGPC ordered the commanding officer to discharge him no later than January 
21, 1998, with an honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability, a JFX separation 
code,  and  the  appropriate  narrative  reason  for  separation  found  in  the  SPD 
Handbook. 
 
 
On  December  22,  1997,  the  applicant  reported  to  his  new  unit’s  health 
clinic.    He  told  them  that  his  suicide  attempt  had  been  serious.    He  had 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  A doctor at the clinic discussed the possibility of holding a 
medical board with the applicant but reported that he stated that he wanted “to 
waive Board & address depression [through the] VA.” 
 
 
On January 10, 1998, the applicant’s commanding officer asked CGPC to 
cancel the discharge orders dated December 19, 1997, because the applicant had 
been  “diagnosed  with  ICD  9  code  311  [depressive  disorder]  which  is  a  ratable 
disability  under  provision  of  Medical  Manual  resulting  [him]  to  be  considered 
for MedBoard vice discharge.”   
 

On  January  20,  1998,  the  applicant  was  transferred  from  the  cutter  to  a 

shore unit pending his medical board or administrative discharge. 
 
On February 2, 1998, during a follow-up visit, the applicant indicated that 
 
he was “doing well” on Prozac and wanted a medical board even if it extended 
his service by six to twelve months.  The doctor reported that he would initiate 
an Initial Medical Board (IMB). 
 
 
On February 4, 1998, the Coast Guard asked a psychiatrist to examine the 
applicant and review his medical history to determine whether his condition was 
service connected or whether it existed prior to his enlistment.  The psychiatrist 
reported that the applicant was in a good mood and was satisfied with his cur-
rent duty assignment.  He also reported that the applicant “denied neurovege-

tative symptoms of depression or significant symptoms consistent with a depres-
sive  or  anxiety  disorder”  and  showed  “no  evidence  of  disorder  of  thought  or 
process.”  He found the applicant to be “psychiatrically fit for full duty” as there 
was  “no  evidence  of  an  ongoing  major  mental  disorder.”    However,  he  diag-
nosed the applicant with a borderline personality disorder and recommended an 
administrative separation as being “in the  best interests of the service member 
and the Coast Guard.” 
 
 
On  February  6,  1998,  CGPC  informed  the  applicant’s  command  that  his 
medical history, including the reports of his psychiatric evaluations at the hospi-
tals  in  xxxxx  and  xxxxxx,  had  been  reviewed  by  the  medical  staff  at  CGPC.  
Because psychiatrists at both hospitals had diagnosed the applicant with a per-
sonality  disorder,  CGPC  concluded  that  no  medical  board  was  required  and 
ordered that he be discharged no later than February 15, 1998. 
 
 
On February 9, 1998, the applicant visited the health clinic.  His therapist 
reported  that  the  applicant  was  upset  because  the  diagnosis  of  borderline  per-
sonality  disorder  might  disqualify  him  from  military  or  civilian  flying  and  he 
had been planning on becoming a private pilot and flight instructor. 
 
 
On  February  13,  1998,  the  applicant’s  command  requested  permission 
from CGPC to delay his discharge until March 5, 1998, to allow sufficient time for 
normal 21-day separation processing.  CGPC responded on the same day that no 
further delay was authorized and ordered his command to effect discharge.  
 
 
On  xxxxxx,  1998,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  Article 
12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  He had served 1 year, 10 months, and 20 days 
on active duty in the Coast Guard in addition to his previous 4 years in the Air 
Force.  The narrative reason for discharge shown on his DD 214 is “personality 
disorder”; the separation code is JFX (“involuntary discharge directed … when a 
personality  disorder  exists,  not  amounting  to  a  disability,  which  potentially 
interferes with assignment to or performance of duty”); and a reenlistment code 
of  RE-3G  (“eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor:    condition 
(not physical disability) interfering with performance of duty”). 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 21, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s 
request for lack of merit. 
  
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that no procedural or substantive errors were 
committed  during  the  applicant’s  separation.    He  argued  that,  with  less  than 

eight years of active service, the applicant was not entitled to an Administrative 
Discharge Board.  Under Article 12.B.16.2., the Chief Counsel alleged, the appli-
cant was entitled only to notice of the reason for his pending separation and his 
rights; an opportunity to consult with legal counsel if a less than honorable dis-
charge  was  contemplated;  and  the  opportunity  to  submit  a  written  statement.  
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  not 
denied any of the rights to which he was entitled and that he chose to submit a 
written  statement.    The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  because  the  applicant  was 
being  considered  for  an  honorable  discharge  only,  he  had  no  right  to  consult 
with counsel, but the Coast Guard offered him the opportunity anyway.  How-
ever, he alleged, the applicant declined the offer. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  further  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  complied  with 
Article 12.B.h. of the Personnel Manual by having the applicant examined by a 
psychiatrist on February 11, 1998, prior to separating him.  He alleged that the 
psychiatrist  confirmed  an  earlier  diagnosis  that  the  applicant  had  a  borderline 
personality disorder.  He alleged that members with a borderline personality dis-
order  are  qualified  for  administrative  separation  under  Article  5.B.2.j.  of  the 
Medical  Manual  and  that  such  disorders  do  not  constitute  physical  disabilities 
under the rating system of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).  There-
fore, he alleged, the applicant was not entitled to appear before a medical board. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary, 
government officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, law-
fully,  and  in  good  faith.”    Arens  v. United States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir. 
1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Therefore, because 
the applicant has presented no evidence to rebut the psychiatric diagnoses made 
while he was in the service, the Board should find that the Coast Guard commit-
ted no injustice or error in determining that he had a personality disorder and 
was subject to administrative discharge.   
 

The Chief Counsel alleged that as a member with a diagnosed personality 
disorder,  the  applicant  was  assigned  the  proper  SPD  code,  reenlistment  code, 
and narrative reason for separation under the provisions of the SPD Handbook.  
He pointed out that the applicant’s commanding officer could have assigned him 
an  RE-4  code,  making  him  absolutely  ineligible  for  reenlistment, but  chose  the 
more  lenient  RE-3G  code  because  of  the  psychiatrist’s  determination  that  the 
applicant did not have a major mental disorder.  With an RE-3G, the Chief Coun-
sel stated, the applicant can reenlist in a military service if he proves that he has 
overcome his condition. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On December 21, 2000, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The Board did not 
receive any response. 
  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  12.B.16.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST  M1000.6A) 
authorizes  enlisted  personnel  to  be  administratively  discharged  due  to  unsuit-
ability if they have been diagnosed with one of the personality disorders listed in 
Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual. 
 

Chapter  5.B.2  of  the  Medical  Manual  (COMDTINST  M6000.1B)  lists  the 
personality disorders that qualify a member for administrative discharge pursu-
ant to Article 12 of the Personnel Manual.  Borderline personality disorders are 
included on the list.   
 
 
Article 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual states that members with less 
than eight years of service who are being recommended for discharge by reason 
of unsuitability must (a) be informed in writing of the reason they are being con-
sidered  for  discharge,  (b)  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  make  a  statement  in 
writing, and (c) be afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel if a less than 
honorable discharge is contemplated. 
 
Under  the  SPD  Handbook,  members  who  are  being  discharged  because 
 
they have been diagnosed with a personality disorder that does not amount to a 
disability must be assigned a JFX separation code, “personality disorder” as the 
narrative reason for separation, and either an RE-3G or RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
Under Chapter 5.B.10.b.(3) of the Medical Manual, depressive mood disor-
ders qualify as physical impairments, and members diagnosed with one should 
be  evaluated  by  an  IMB  in  accordance  with  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation 
System (PDES) Manual.  The IMB must determine whether the member is (a) fit 
for duty; (b) unfit for duty because of physical impairment and referred to a Cen-
tral Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) for a determination of a percentage dis-
ability rating; (c) unfit for duty for a reason other than physical impairment; or 
(d)  unfit  for  duty  because  of  a  physical  impairment  that  existed  prior  to  his 
enlistment and was not aggravated by his service.  PDES Manual, Article 3.G. 4.a.  
If a member is referred to a CPEB, the CPEB reviews his record and makes the 
same fitness for duty determinations made by the IMB.  The CPEB also assigns 
percentage disability ratings to each of the member’s physical impairments and 
indicates what, if any, percentage of the disability is service connected because it 
was  incurred  during  or  aggravated  by  the  member’s  military  service.    PDES 
Manual,  Article  2.C.3.    If  a  member,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  rejects  the 

CPEB’s  findings,  he  is  entitled  to  a  hearing  by  a  Formal  Physical  Evaluation 
Board (FPEB).  PDES Manual, Article 4.B.2.b. 

 
Article 2.C.2.b.(2) of the PDES Manual states that a “member being proc-
essed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability shall 
not  be  referred  for  disability  evaluation  unless  the  conditions  in  paragraphs 
2.C.2.b.(1)(a)  or  (b)  are  met.”    Those  paragraphs  require  that  “(a)  the  member, 
because of disability, was physically unable to perform adequately in his or her 
assigned duties; or (b) acute, grave illness or injury, or other deterioration of the 
member’s  physical  condition  occurred  immediately  prior  to  or  coincident  with 
processing for separation … .” 

 
Under the SPD Handbook, members who are discharged upon the recom-
mendation  of  a  CPEB  or  FPEB  because  of  a  physical  impairment  that  existed 
prior  to  their  enlistment  receive  a  JFM  separation  code;  an  RE-3P  reenlistment 
code; and “disability, existed prior to service, PEB,” as their narrative reason for 
separation.  Members who are discharged upon the recommendation of a CPEB 
or FPEB because of a physical impairment that was aggravated by their enlist-
ment receive a JFQ separation code; an RE-3P reenlistment code; and “disability 
aggravation” as their narrative reason for separation. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The record indicates that on September 21, 1997, the applicant was 
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and a borderline personality disorder by 
a psychiatrist atxxxxxx  Hospital.  Because  of this diagnosis, the applicant was 
subject  to  administrative  discharge  under  Article  21.B.16.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  On October 28, 1997, his command began processing him for an admin-
istrative discharge.  The record indicates that the applicant was informed of his 
rights and submitted a statement in which he indicated that he did not object to 
being  administratively  discharged,  in  accordance  with  Article  12.B.16.d.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.    However,  the  discharge  proceedings  were  delayed,  appar-
ently because the hospital was unable to provide a legible copy of the psychia-
trist’s report. 

 

3. 

The  record  indicates  that  in  December  1997,  the  applicant  grew 
tired of waiting to be discharged and wanted to avoid further sea duty, as his 
cutter was scheduled to get underway on December 19th.  On XXXXXX, he got a 
xxxx, warned the attendant of xxxxxxx that he intended to hang himself off the 
top, climbed xxxxx, and waited until the police arrived.  Following this “suicide 
gesture,” the applicant was admitted to an Army Medical Center, where a psy-
chiatrist  diagnosed  him  with  borderline  personality  disorder  and  a  depressive 
disorder, not otherwise specified.  Under Chapter 5.B.2. of the Medical Manual, 
the applicant remained subject to administrative discharge because of his person-
ality  disorder.    Under  Chapter  5.B.10.,  his  depressive  disorder  called  for 
processing through the PDES. 

On December 19, 1997, CGPC finally responded to his command’s 
request  for  discharge  authority  and  ordered  the  applicant  discharged  no  later 
than January 21, 1998, because of his personality disorder.  However, on January 
10,  1998,  his  command  asked  CGPC  about  whether  he  should  be  processed 
through the PDES because of the diagnosis of a depressive disorder.  Under Arti-
cle  2.C.2.b.(2)  of  the  PDES  Manual,  because  the  applicant  was  already  being 
processed for separation due to his personality disorder, CGPC was required to 
determine whether the applicant met the provisions of Article 2.C.2.b.(1)(a) and 
(b) of the PDES Manual.  

 
4. 

 
5. 

CGPC  extended  the  deadline  for  the  applicant’s  discharge  to 
xxxxxxx,  and  ordered  him  to  undergo  another  psychiatric  evaluation  to  deter-
mine  whether  he  should  be  processed  under  the  PDES.    CGPC  also  had  his 
records reviewed by medical authorities to determine whether his mental condi-
tion  could  be  considered  service  connected.   The  psychiatrist  reported that  the 
applicant  was  in  a  good  mood  and  satisfied  with  his  new  work  and  that  he 
showed no symptoms of depression.  The medical authorities reported that the 
applicant’s condition pre-existed his enlistment in the Coast Guard and was not 
service connected.  In light of these findings, the Board finds that CGPC properly 
concluded that under Article 2.C.2.b. of the PDES Manual, the applicant was not 
entitled to processing through the PDES.  Because of his diagnosed personality 
disorder,  however,  the  applicant  remained  subject  to  administrative  discharge 
under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
In light of the applicant’s medical record, the Board finds that he 
has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred or 
committed an injustice in diagnosing him with a borderline personality disorder.  
Nor has he proved that the Coast Guard committed any errors or injustices in 
processing  him  for  discharge  due  to  his  personality  disorder.    In  addition,  the 
applicant’s  DD  214  reflects  the  proper  separation  and  reenlistment  codes  and 
narrative reason for separation prescribed by the SPD Handbook. 

6. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

 
 
 
 
 

7. 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
Robert A. Monniere 

 

 

 
Blane A. Workie 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.