DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-036 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
completed  on  February  5,  2001,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  military  and  medical 
records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 28, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
 
The applicant is a former seaman apprentice (SA; pay grade E-2) who enlisted in 
the Coast Guard on                      .  She asked the Board to correct her records to show 
that she was discharged on July 16, 1999, as a result of a medical board finding that she 
was not fit for duty because of a physical disability, scoliosis.  Currently, her discharge 
form, DD 214, shows that she was discharged for “miscellaneous/general reasons.” 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that she began experiencing pain radiating down her legs 
while still in boot camp.  She was examined and found to have scoliosis and a pinched 
nerve in her back, but the medical staff told her that the pain was not severe and would 
probably go away. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that after she graduated from boot camp and was sent to her 
first station, she continued to experience back pain and was examined by a Dr. S, who 
determined  that  her  condition  was  severe  enough  to  warrant  processing  under  the 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).  Dr. S also referred her to a specialist, Dr. 

K.  The specialist found that she had a rib prominence and paralumbar prominence on the 
left side and that her curve was 36 degrees. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  her  command  started  the  medical  board  process  and 
made plans to ship her to             to consult with a spinal surgeon.  However, three days 
before she was to leave, she was told that she would be administratively separated due to 
a pre-existing medical condition.  She alleged that this decision was unjust because she 
“was well out of the time frame for that type of discharge.”  Moreover, she argued, if her 
condition was pre-existing, it would have been noticed during her pre-enlistment medical 
evaluation since it is “noticeable with the naked eye.”   
 
 
The applicant also argued that she should have been discharged when the problem 
was discovered in boot camp.  She alleged that she sought treatment for her pain 27 times 
during nine months in the service and was repeatedly confined to quarters or placed on 
light  duty.    Because  she  was  not  discharged  promptly,  she  alleged,  she  has  been 
permanently impaired.  Before starting boot camp, she had no pain, but now she “will 
never be pain free.”  
 
 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  before  her  discharge,  she  suffered  from 
abdominal  pain  and  was  found  to  have  an  ovarian  cyst.    A  doctor  arranged  for  her  to 
undergo laproscopy on            , to see if there was scarring and to check her intestines.  
Therefore, her pending discharge date of            , was cancelled.  However, on            , 
she  discovered  that  her  laproscopy  had  been  cancelled  and  that  her  discharge  as  of                
, would go forward.  She alleged that she should not have been discharged until after her 
laproscopy and after she had consulted the spinal surgeon. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that because her command failed to have her evaluated by a 
medical board under the PDES, she has received no compensation from the Coast Guard 
for her debilitating scoliosis, and she was discharged before she could be treated for her 
ovarian problems. 
 
 
In support of her allegation, the applicant submitted copies of some of her medical 
and  military  records.    In  addition,  she  submitted  several  letters  from  family  members, 
who stated that prior to joining the Coast Guard she was a very healthy, athletic woman 
who had never complained about her back.  They stated that they were shocked by her 
severe  back  pain  and  disability,  which  they  first  noticed  when  they  attended  her 
graduation from boot camp. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On                            ,  the  applicant  underwent  a  physical  examination  prior  to  her 

 
 
enlistment.  No problem with her spine was noticed. 
 
On             , the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard and began boot camp.  She 
 
was treated for a chlamydial infection.  On November 6, 1998, she sought treatment for 
back pain.  On                 , a lumbar spine x-ray revealed “scoliosis to the left” and 

“pseudoarthritis of the left transverse process of L5-S1.”  The applicant continued to visit 
the clinic often for her back pain. 
 
 
The applicant graduated from boot camp and was stationed at a remote site.  She 
continued to suffer from back pain.  On             , Dr. S noted in her record that she should 
be administratively discharged because of her spinal deviation and scoliosis. 
 
On               , the applicant was evaluated by Dr. K, an orthopedic surgeon.  He 
 
reported that she told him she began to experience pain in her legs during boot camp.  
After about a month, the pain “resolved and has become isolated in her back.”  Dr. K 
reported  to  Dr.  S  that  the  applicant  had  scoliosis,  a  rib  prominence,  and  paralumbar 
prominence on the left side.  He reported that her “thoracolumbar curve measured from 
T5  to  L1  was  36  degrees.”  He  stated  that  when  she  was  standing,  she  had  a  “notable 
kyphotic  deformity,”  which  she  can  overcome  to  stand  straighter,  though  less 
comfortably.  He diagnosed her with “King type III scoliosis.” 
 
 
Dr.  K  also  stated  that  her  condition  “likely  represents  a  case  of  adolescent 
scoliosis that was missed during her youth and now she has exacerbated symptoms after 
participating more in the higher physical demands of boot camp.” He determined that it 
must be a pre-existing condition because, “[a]lthough [he did] not know what her curve 
was about five months ago, it is unlikely that it has progressed significantly from normal 
to this measured 36 degrees thoracolumbar curvature over that short of a time frame.”  He 
indicated that he could not predict whether her scoliosis would progress because of her 
age and degree of curvature.  He stated that curves of less than 30 degrees rarely progress 
(get worse), and curves of 50 or more degrees usually progress.  He recommended that 
she be followed by a specialist who is “more astute at spine intervention.”  He stated that 
her condition did not warrant surgery. 
 

On           , Dr. S reported that her scoliosis and pain were severe enough to 
warrant processing by a medical board.  She was referred for physical therapy.  
On             , she was evaluated by a psychologist and found to be depressed 
because of her back pain and stress. 

      . 
 

 
On              , Dr. S recommended that the applicant be administratively 
discharged in accordance with Article 12.B. of the Personnel Manual because of 
her pre-existing disqualifying medical condition.  He stated that her scoliosis was 
“obviously  congenital”  and  that  Coast  Guard  standards  prohibit  enlistment  or 
retention of anyone with spinal curvature greater than 22 degrees. 

 
Also on            , the applicant sought treatment for pelvic pain, which she 
reported  had  occurred  periodically  during  the  previous  three  years.    An 
ultrasound revealed a small cyst in one of her ovaries.  She was also treated for a         

On               , the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to CGPC 
that  the  applicant  be  administratively  discharged.    He  stated  that  because  her 
condition was pre-existing and disqualifying for enlistment, she was not entitled 
to an Initial Medical Board (IMB).  There is no evidence in the record indicating 
that  the  applicant  was  informed  of  this  recommendation  or  given  the 
opportunity to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

 
On          , the applicant was again evaluated for recurring sharp pains in 
her  lower  abdomen.    She  told  the  doctor  that  the  pains  had  been  occurring 
occasionally  over  the  past  few  years.    The  doctor  reported  that  her  pain  was 
characteristic of scarring secondary to                 and scheduled “a diagnostic 
laproscopy to look for sources of pain.” 

 
On             , CGPC ordered the applicant’s command to discharge her 
administratively no later than             , in accordance with Article 12.B.12. of the 
Personnel Manual. 

 
On              , the applicant underwent a physical examination prior to 
being  discharged.    The  clinical  evaluation  showed  that  abdomen,  pelvis,  and 
spine had “abnormal” conditions; her abdomen was tender upon deep palpation.  
Her gynecological examination suggested pelvic scarring; and her spine showed 
a  “moderately  prominent  kyphotic  deformity.”    The  doctor  reported  that  her 
“moderate”  scoliosis  was  symptomatic  and  considered  disqualifying  for  dis-

 
On                          ,  the  applicant  signed  acknowledgments  of  having  been 
counseled about Article 12.B.53. of the Personnel Manual, which concerns mem-
bers’ rights upon separation, and Article 12.B.3., which concerns the type of dis-
charge (honorable, general, etc.), the reason for discharge (disability, convenience 
of the government, expiration of enlistment, etc.), and the reenlistment code. 

 
On             , the applicant’s command informed CGPC that she would not 
be  discharged  on                          because  she  was  undergoing  medical  treatment 
unrelated to the condition for which she was being discharged. 

 
On            , her command further informed CGPC about the nature of the 
medical treatment (the diagnostic laproscopy) and that she would have a follow-
up appointment on               . 

 
On                            ,  CGPC  informed  the  applicant’s  command  that  it  had 
reviewed her situation, that the surgery was not authorized, and that she was fit 
for separation.  CGPC advised her command to refer her to the Department of 
Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) for treatment of her medical conditions. 

gressed to 42 degrees. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

charge, but her intermittent pelvic pain was not.  Nevertheless, the doctor and a 
senior chief health services technician found her to be qualified for discharge. 

 
On              , the applicant was discharged under Article 12.B.12. of the 
Personnel  Manual  for  “miscellaneous/general  reasons”  with  an  RE-4  reenlist-
ment code (not eligible to reenlist).  Prior to her discharge, she was given a copy 
of the report of the physical evaluation, which found her fit for discharge.  She 
objected to it and stated that her abdominal pain was severe. 

 
On July 27, 2000, the DVA informed the applicant that she had been found 
10  percent  disabled  by  service-connected  scoliosis  because  her  scoliosis,  which 
pre-existed her enlistment, had been “permanently worsened as a result of serv-
ice.”  Her pelvic pain was found not to be service connected because she suffered 
from  chronic  pelvic  pain  prior  to  her  enlistment  and  the  condition  did  not 
worsen during her service. 

 
On  January  22,  2001,  the  applicant’s  curvature  was  found  to  have  pro-

On September 25, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard advised the BCMR 
that  “granting  of  an  initial  medical  board  (IMB)  in  this  case  is  appropriate  only  if 
Applicant  continues  to  request  an  IMB  after  being  [made]  fully  aware  of  the  likely 
outcome and negative impact of such board.” 

 
The Chief Counsel admitted that regulations require members who are rendered 
unfit for duty to be evaluated by an IMB even if the medical condition that renders them 
unfit existed prior to their enlistment.  He stated that an administrative separation might 
have  been  ordered  because  the  applicant  wanted  to  be  separated  expeditiously.  
Nevertheless, it is unclear why the applicant was administratively separated when it is 
clear that her scoliosis caused her discharge.  Therefore, the Board could order the Coast 
Guard to convene an IMB for the applicant.  However, he argued that such relief was not 
necessarily in the applicant’s interest because 

 
in  the  event  that  the  Coast  Guard  finds  service  aggravation  and  assigns  Applicant  a 
disability rating, the disability rating may likely be no higher than 10%, and the severance 
pay  she  receives  for  the  disability  will  offset  her  [DVA]  benefits.    Most  importantly, 
however,  Applicant  should  be  aware  that  the  Coast  Guard  may  likely  find  no  service 
aggravation and such documentation, although not likely, may cause a discontinuance of 
her  [DVA]  benefits  if  the  [DVA]  becomes  aware  of  the  Coast  Guard  action  and 
reevaluates her case.  In short, Applicant has nothing to gain and while the risk may be 
small, Applicant may lose the disability benefits she presently receives if the relief she 
requests is granted. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that,  under  Chapter  2.A.4.  of  the  PDES  Manual,  to 
convince an IMB that her condition was aggravated by her service the applicant “must 

show a ‘measurable or demonstrated increase in the level of her impairment in excess of 
that due to the natural progress of a disease or injury.”  “Simply demonstrating that the 
member  started  experiencing  pain  after  joining  the  Coast  Guard  does  not  satisfy  the 
requirement  to  demonstrate  that  the  preexisting  scoliosis  condition  was  aggravated  by 
Coast Guard service.”  He alleged that, even though her pain began and increased while 
she was in the service, there is no evidence that her condition was actually aggravated 
while she was in the service.  He pointed out that Dr. S found that it was unlikely that her 
activity in the Coast Guard had caused her curvature to increase.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On  September  26,  2001,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief 
Counsel’s advisory opinion and invited her to respond within 15 days.  She requested an 
extension and responded on October 25, 2000. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Chief  Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  was  “mostly 
untrue,  inaccurate,  and  manipulative.”    She  alleged  that  she  had  never  sought  an 
administrative discharge in lieu of a medical board.  She alleged that she was never told 
she would be administratively, instead of medically, separated until three days before her 
discharge.    She  was  told  that  an  administrative  discharge  was  allowed  because  of  the 
“time frame,” but she later discovered this was not true. 

 
The applicant also alleged that there is evidence in her record that her scoliosis 
was aggravated while she was serving on active duty.  She pointed out that her spine was 
found to be normal prior to her enlistment on            .  She further pointed out that, 
although her scoliosis was discovered in November         , she was allowed to remain in 
the service.  Therefore, presumably at that time it was not severe enough to mandate her 
discharge or to prohibit her assignment to a remote site.  Moreover, although on            , 
her curvature measured 36 degrees, by January 22, 2001, it was 42 degrees. 

 
The applicant included with her response a copy of her most recent x-ray. 
 
Because the applicant’s written response to the advisory opinion did not indicate 
that she understood the Chief Counsel’s statement about the risk PDES processing might 
pose and did not expressly state whether she wanted such processing, the Deputy Chair of 
the BCMR telephoned the applicant on two occasions to discuss the matter with her.  On 
both occasions, the applicant stated that she understood the Chief Counsel’s statements 
but, nevertheless, wanted to have her case evaluated by a medical board.  She stated that 
her primary concern was that the Coast Guard improve its screening of recruits so that 
others would not have to undergo the pain and  stress she had.  She  alleged that if the 
Coast Guard had properly screened her in              , she would not have been enlisted, 
would not have gone through the rigors of boot camp, and would not have suffered so 
much  back  pain.    The  applicant  also  stated  that  she  is  currently  employed  and  is  not 
interested in being recalled to active duty. 
 

APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 

 
Disability Statutes 
 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 1201(b) provides that members who have served on active duty 
for more than 30 continuous days but less than eight years may be medically retired if the 
disability is at least 30 percent under the DVA’s rating schedule and is “the proximate 
result of performing active duty” or “incurred in the line of duty.”  Under 10 U.S.C. § 
1203(b), such members whose disabilities are less than 30 percent may receive severance 

pay.    However,  the  DVA  offsets  any  severance  payments  by  the  Coast  Guard  when  it 
awards disability benefits. 

 

Provisions of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Under  Article  12.B.5.b.,  a  member  with  less  than  eight  years  of  active 
service who is being discharged and is ineligible to reenlist must be notified and 
allowed to submit a written appeal to the Personnel Command. 
 
 
Under Article 12.B.6., before being discharged,  every member must be given a 
complete  physical  examination  in  accordance  with  the  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual, 
COMDTINST M6000.1 (series).  The member must be given a copy of the examination 
report  (form  SF-88)  and  sign  another  form  indicating  whether  she  agrees  of  disagrees 
with the findings.  Article 12.B.6.b.  If the member disagrees with the findings, the report 
and the member’s statement objecting to the findings are forwarded to CGPC for review, 
and  the  member  may  be  retained  on  active  duty  until  the  review  is  complete.    Article 
12.B.6.c. 
 
 
Under Article 12.B.6.d.3., if the physical examination indicates that the member 
has a permanent, disqualifying physical impairment, a medical board must be convened 
and the member must be retained in service until processing under the PDES is complete. 

 
 
Under  Article  12.B.12.a.5.c.,  a  member  may  be  administratively  discharged  for 
the convenience of the government if the member is “undergoing recruit training in an 
original  enlistment  [and]  has  fewer  than  60  days'  active  service  [and]  has  a  physical 
disability  not  incurred  in  or  aggravated  by  a  period  of  active  military  service;  i.e.,  the 
defect existed before the member entered the Service.” 
 
 
Article 12.B.15.b. provides that CGPC may “direct or authorize a discharge for 
physical  disability  not  incurred  in  or  aggravated  by  a  period  of  active  military  service 
through  final  action  on  a  physical  evaluation  board”  if  a  medical  board  finds  that  the 
member  is  unfit  for  duty  and  that  her  physical  disability  was  neither  incurred  in  nor 
aggravated by a period of active military service.”  However, the member must be “fully 
informed of his or her right to a full, fair hearing and ... state[] in writing he or she does 
not demand such a hearing.”  If the member does not demand a hearing, she must sign a 
statement acknowledging that she “may be separated from the United States Coast Guard 
in the near future without further hearing and without disability, retirement, or severance 
pay, and any compensation whatsoever.”  
 
Provisions of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) 

 
According to Chapter 3.B.3.a.(1) of the Medical Manual, during the medi-
cal 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.”  
Chapter 3.F. lists medical conditions that “are normally disqualifying” for reten-

tion in 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 “more than moderate” kyphosis 
and scoliosis “with over two inches of deviation of tips of spinous processes from 
the midline.”1  Persons whose curvature is greater than 20 degrees may not enlist 
in the Coast Guard.  Chapter 3.D.37.c.(4). 

 
According to Chapter 3.B.6., which is entitled “Separation Not Appropri-

ate by Reason of Physical Disability,” 
 

 
Provisions of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2B)  
 
 
The PDES Manual governs the separation or retirement of members due 
to  physical  disability.    Article  2.C.2.  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  the  following 
general policies: 
                                                 
1  The record does not contain a doctor’s measurement of the applicant’s spinal deviation. 

[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. 
 
Chapter 4.B.27.c. provides that “[m]embers not already in the physical dis-
ability evaluation system, who disagree with the assumption of fitness for duty 
at separation shall indicate on the reverse of form CG-4057.  They shall then pro-
ceed as indicated in paragraph 3-B-5. of this manual.” 

 
According to Chapter 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 [CGPC]. . . . 
 
.  .  .  Commander  [CGPC]  will  evaluate  each  case  and,  based  upon  information 
submitted, take one of the following actions: 
 
(1)  find separation appropriate, in which case the individual will be so notified 
and the normal separation process completed; 
 
(2)    find  separation  inappropriate,  in  which  case  the  entire  record  will  be 
returned and appropriate action recommended; or 
 
(3)  request additional documentation before making a determination. 

 
a.  The sole standard in making determinations of physical disability as a basis 
for  retirement  or  separation  shall  be  unfitness  to  perform  the  duties  of  office, 
grade, rank or rating because of disease or injury incurred or aggravated through 
military service.  
 
Article 3.D.3.8. provides that an IMB must be initiated for a member “in 

 
any situation where fitness for continuation of active duty is in question.” 
 
 
The PDES Manual governs the separation of members due to physical dis-
ability.  Article 2.A.23. defines “incurrence of disability” as the moment “when 
the physical disability is contracted or suffered as distinguished from a later date 
when  the  member’s  physical  impairment  is  diagnosed  or  renders  the  member 
unfit for duty. …  Further, physical disability due to the natural progress of dis-
ease  or  injury  is  incurred  when  the  disease  or  injury  causing  the  disability  is 
contracted.” 
 
Article 2.A.41. defines “proximate result of military service” as occurring 
 
when an injury or disease or aggravation thereof “may reasonably be regarded 
as an incident of military service or may reasonably be assumed to be the effect 
of military service.”  
 

Article 2.A.47. defines being “unfit for continued duty” as the “status of 
an individual member who is physically and/or mentally unable to perform the 
duties  of  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  physical  disability  incurred 
while entitled to basic pay.  The status of unfitness applies to individuals unable 
to perform specialized duty, such as duty involving flying or diving, only if the 
performance  of  the  specialized  duty  is  a  requirement  of  the  member’s  enlisted 
rating.” 
 
 
Article  2.B.1.  states  that  members  are  presumed  to  be  fit  for  duty  when 
they enter the Coast Guard and that “[a]ny increase in the degree of a preservice 
impairment which occurs during active service is presumed to be due to aggra-
vation unless it is shown to be due to the natural progression of the disease or 
injury which existed prior to entry on active duty.”  Under Article 2.B.2., the pre-
sumption of fitness for duty must be overcome by a preponderance of the evi-
dence,  and  the  assumption  concerning  aggravation  must  be overcome  by  clear 
and convincing evidence. 
 

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. 

 
2. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

4. 

3. 

 
The  statements  by  the  applicant’s  Coast  Guard  doctors  suggest  that  the 
Coast Guard erred in enlisting her because her spinal curvature was probably noticeable 
and  greater  than  20  degrees  at  the  time  of  her  pre-enlistment  physical  examination.  
Medical Manual, Chapter 3.D.37.c.(4).  The preponderance of the evidence in the record 
indicates that the applicant’s scoliosis was discovered while she was in boot camp and 
that she had not previously experienced any back pain or other symptoms of scoliosis.  It 
is unclear from the record whether the applicant’s back pain would have begun and would 
have disabled her as much if she had never been enlisted in the Coast Guard.  The record 
indicates that after her scoliosis was discovered in boot camp, the Coast Guard disregard-
ed her condition and assigned her to a remote site, possibly further exacerbating her pain 
and consequent disability.2 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  has  admitted  that,  under  Article  12.B.6.d.3.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual,  as  well  as  the  provisions  of  the  Medical  Manual  and  the  PDES 
Manual, the applicant was entitled to evaluation by an IMB because of her scoliosis.  Her 
command erred when it determined that she could be administratively discharged without 
PDES  processing  simply  because  her  doctors  had  indicated  that  her  scoliosis  probably 
predated her enlistment. 
 
 
The Board also notes that the record indicates that the applicant was never 
notified  until  a  few  days  before  her  discharge  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  intent  to  deny  her 
further medical attention and discharge her administratively.  There is no evidence that 
she was notified on or before              , that her command was initiating an administrative 
discharge.  Nor was she permitted to object and submit a statement on her own behalf, as 
required under Article 12.B.5.b. of the Personnel Manual.  
 
 
Furthermore,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  applicant’s  objection  to  the 
report of her final physical examination, which was completed on             , and presented 
to her on the day of her discharge, was properly reviewed in accordance with Chapter 
3.B.5. of the Medical Manual. 
 
 
The applicant has proved by  a preponderance of the evidence that, after 
erroneously enlisting her and retaining her despite her scoliosis and back pain, the Coast 
Guard  essentially  ignored  its  own  regulations  and  denied  her  due  process  and  proper 
PDES processing when it discharged her. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel advised the applicant against seeking an IMB because 
of the chance that it would result in a determination that she had not been disabled, or had 
                                                 
2  The Board is not suggesting that the applicant’s spinal curvature was increased by her service 
in  the  Coast  Guard.    However,  spinal  curvature  by  itself,  without  pain,  is  not  necessarily 
disabling.  Presumably, the applicant’s rigorous activity at boot camp and at her first duty station 
could increase her pain and thereby increase the degree to which she was disabled by pain. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

her disability aggravated, by her service or while she served on active duty and that the 
DVA  would  learn  of  that  finding  and  revoke  its  determination  of  service  connection.  
Despite this warning, the applicant has insisted that she wishes to receive due process and 
undergo PDES processing. 
 
 
While  it  is  true  that  an  IMB  could  conceivably  find  that  none  of  the 
applicant’s  disability  was  incurred  or  aggravated  while  she  served  on  active  duty,  it  is 
also  at  least  possible,  given  the  definitions  in Article  2.A.  of  the  PDES  Manual,  that 
proper processing could result in a disability rating for the applicant.  The Board will not 
speculate  upon  what  action  the  DVA  might  take  were  the  results  of  PDES  processing 
adverse to the applicant.  However, if the results of PDES processing were adverse, she 
would again be entitled to seek relief via this Board. 
 
 
Accordingly, the Board should grant relief by ordering the Coast Guard to 
convene an IMB for the applicant and process her in accordance with regulation.  It is not 
necessary to revoke her discharge or recall her to active duty to do so. 
 

9. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

The application of                                                , USCG, is granted as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
 
Within four months of the date of this decision, the Coast Guard shall convene an 
IMB  to  evaluate  her  condition.    Thereafter,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  process  her  case  in 
accordance with the PDES Manual and applicable regulation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

_______________________________ 
John A. Kern 

_______________________________ 
David M. Wiegand 

_______________________________ 
George J. Jordan