DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
 
BCMR Docket 
No. 2001-049 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
    

  FINAL DECISION 

This final decision, dated November 15, 2001, is signed by three duly appointed 

 
ULMER, Deputy Chairman: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10, United States 
Code.    It  was  commenced  on  February  26,  2001  upon  the  Board’s  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s complete application for correction of his military record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
Applicant's Request for Relief 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  was 
discharged from the Coast Guard due to physical disability (high blood pressure) that 
was incurred on or aggravated during a period of active duty.   
 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 23, 1972.  He was discharged 
on August 14, 1972 due to a physical disability (high blood pressure) that existed prior 
to  enlistment.    The  applicant  alleged  that  neither  his  pre-enlistment  physical  nor  a 
subsequent  medical  evaluation  determined  that  he  was  suffering  from  high  blood 
pressure.    The  applicant  also  claimed  that  he  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error until 
August 18, 2000.  He stated that the Board should find that it is in the interest of justice 
to consider his application because “[he has] never needed or asked for help until now.  
[He  has]  been  able  to  manage,  but  now  he  is  on  disability  from  work[er’s] 
comp[ensation] and other medical problems.” 
 

EXCERPTS FROM THE RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
The  record  contains  a  medical  report  of  the  applicant’s  pre-enlistment  medical 
examination,  dated  XXXXXXX.    It  indicated  that  it  was  necessary  to  monitor  the 
applicant’s blood pressure twice per day for three days. The readings for this three-day 
period  were  148/90  &  160/80,  130/80  &  172/85,  140/90  &  140/88.    After  these 
readings, the applicant was determined to be acceptable for enlistment.  However, for 

reasons  not  explained  in  the  medical  report,  the  applicant did not enlist at that time. 
Subsequently, he underwent an additional three-day observation of his blood pressure 
from  XXXXXX  to  XXXXXX.  The  readings  were  136/88  &  144/90,  136/90  &  130/86, 
140/88  &  148/86.    His  blood  pressure  at  this  time  was  noted  to  be  borderline 
acceptable.      Shortly  afterwards,  on  June  23,  1972,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast 
Guard. 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXX,  approximately  five  days  after  the  applicant’s  enlistment,  the 
following notation was made in his medical record:  “This man is to be transferred to 
[holding] company pending medical records and blood pressure readings and pulse[.]”  
His  blood  pressure  was  monitored  over  a  period  of  seven  days.    The  readings  were 
146/114  &  160/112,  156/100  &  160/100,  160/100  &  165/95,  148/106  &  170/120, 
164/108  &  160/100.    On  July  7,  1972,  he  was  referred  to  the  hypertension  clinic  for 
evaluation,  where  he  was  diagnosed  by  a  physician  as  having  hypertension.    The 
physician made the following recommendation: 
 

Assuming that the hypertension was detected at the time of his enlistment 
physical,  this  condition  ante-dated  his  entry  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  on 
evaluation he should be separated from the Coast Guard as having a pre-
existing physical abnormality.   

 
On  XXXXXXXXX,  a  medical  board  convened  to  determine  the  applicant’s 
 
physical  condition  and  fitness  for  duty.    The  applicant  was  diagnosed  as  having 
hypertension of undetermined etiology that rendered him unfit for duty.  The medical 
board report also contained the following pertinent information: 
 

[The  applicant]  received  his  pre-induction  physical  examination  at  .  .  .  
XXXXXXXXXXXX.    At  this  time,  the  physical  examination  revealed 
borderline hypertension, that is, systolic blood pressure ranging from 136 
to 144 and disstolic blood pressure ranging from 86 to 90.  There were no 
other physical abnormalities noted at that time and the patient was found 
qualified for induction into the Coast Guard.  The only previous episode 
of hypertension that the patient could relate was on 24 June 1971 when he 
was  treated  for  an  electrical  shock  by  a  private  physician  and  his  blood 
pressure was found to be 170/100 immediately after the shock.  However, 
. . . the following day when the patient returned for follow-up, the blood 
pressure  was  normal  and  there  were  no  further  complications.    The 
patient relates a strong family history of hypertension . . . . 

[The applicant] received his pre-training physical examination  . . . XXXXX 
XXXX.    At  that  time,  he  was  again  found  to  be  hypertensive  and  to 
document this he was followed for a period of seven day blood pressure 
readings twice daily.  The systolic blood pressure was in the range from 
146 to 170 while the diastolic blood pressure ranged from 95 to 120.   
 

 

This degree of hypertension is disqualifying according to the Coast Guard 
Medical Manual  . . . therefore, [the applicant] is being recommended for 
discharge from the [Coast Guard].   

 

.  .  .    It  is  therefore  the  recommendation  of  this  Medical  Board  that  [the 
applicant]  be  discharged  from  the  [Coast  Guard]  on  the  basis  of  a  pre-
existing physical defect neither incurred on nor aggravated by a period of 
military  service.    This  defect  is  found  disqualifying  in  .  .  .  [the]  Coast 
Guard Medical Manual. . . .   

 
 
On  August  4,  1972,  the  applicant  certified  by  his  signature  that  he  had  been 
advised  of  the  findings  and  recommendations  and  disposition  made  by  the  medical 
board and he did not desire to submit a rebuttal.   
 
 
the Commandant certifying the following: 
 

On August 4, 1972, the applicant also signed a sworn statement from himself to 

I certify that it has been explained to me that . . . I am entitled, as a matter 
of right, to a full and fair hearing before a Physical Evaluation Board prior 
to  my  separation  from  the  United  States  Coast  Guard  if  I  demand  such 
hearing.   
 
I  further  certify  that  it  has  been  fully  explained  to  me  that  if  I  sign  this 
statement I may be separated from the . . . Coast Guard in the near future 
without  further  hearing  and  without  disability  retirement  pay  or 
severance  pay  and  without  any  compensation whatsoever. However, all 
payments  ordinarily  accruing  to  personnel  discharged  under  honorable 
conditions are due and payable. 
 
With full knowledge of the findings of the medical board convened in my 
case and with full knowledge of my rights in this matter I hereby certify 
that  I  do  not  demand  a  hearing  before  a  physical  evaluation  board  and 
request that I be separated from the United States Coast Guard as soon as 
possible. 

On  August  14,  1972,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  in 

 
 
accordance with Article 12-B-9 of the Personnel Manual. 
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
is both untimely and without merit. 
 
 
The Coast Guard stated that the BCMR's regulations require that an application 
be denied if not filed within three years after the alleged error was or should have been 

The Coast Guard recommended that the applicant's request be denied because it 

discovered, unless the Board decides to waive this requirement in the interest of justice. 
In making a determination whether to waive the statute of limitations, the Board must 
consider the reasons for the delay and make a cursory review of the potential merits of 
the claim.  Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir 1995).   
 

The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant has failed to offer any explanation for 
his 26 year delay in filing a correction application.  The Chief Counsel stated that the 
applicant  offered  no  substantial  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  either  an 
injustice or error in discharging him because of a physical disability that existed prior to 
enlistment.  He stated in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, it is presumed 
that military superiors involved in this case discharged their duties correctly, lawfully, 
and in good faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d. 1034, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1992).    
 
 
With respect to the applicant’s claim that his hypertension did not exist prior to 
his enlistment, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant offered no evidence that his 
time  in  the  Coast  Guard,  which  totaled  53  days,  either  caused  or  aggravated  his 
disqualifying  condition.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  contrary  to  the  applicant’s 
allegation  that  no  hypertension  was  found  during  his  pre-enlistment  physical,  the 
record  is  clear  that  the  applicant’s  blood  pressure  was  “borderline  acceptable”  at  the 
time of his pre-enlistment physical.  The Chief Counsel further stated as follows: 
 

 
 
The Chief Counsel noted that the applicant did not choose to rebut the medical 
board and did not elect to have his case heard before the Central Physical Evaluation 
Board (CPEB).  The Chief Counsel concluded his comments with the following:  “[The] 
applicant has failed to (a) prove that the Coast Guard did not follow its own regulations 
when it discharged Applicant due to a physical disability that pre-existed his enlistment 
and (b) overcome the presumption that the Coast Guard officials involved in evaluating 
his case discharged their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” 
 
Applicant's Response to the Coast Guard Views 
 

[Two] weeks prior to the applicant’s enlistment, [his] blood pressure was 
again  recorded  twice  daily  for  three  consecutive  days.    Two  of  the  six 
readings  were  over the standards prescribed in the Medical Manual but 
were  characterized  as  “borderline  acceptable”  .  .  .  Then,  four  days  after 
applicant’s enlistment, he received his pre-training physical.  During this 
physical,  Applicant’s  degree  of  hypertension  was 
to  be 
disqualifying  per  the  Medical  Manual.  .  .  .    Then  from  XXXXXXX, 
Applicant had blood pressure recordings performed twice daily. . . .  Each 
of  these  blood  pressure  recordings  exceeded  the  qualifying  range  for 
continued enlistment.  On XXXXXXX, as a result of these blood pressure 
recordings,  Applicant  was  referred  to  the  Public  Health  Service 
Hypertension Clinic for consultation.  

found 

A copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant and he was urged to 

 
submit a response. He did not submit a response to the views of the Coast Guard. 
 

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  submission,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  It was untimely. 
 

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

2.  The application was not filed with the BCMR within three years of the date 
the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was  discovered  or  should  have  been  discovered.    The 
applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  on  August  14,  1972,  and  he  did  not  file  his 
application for correction until February 26, 2001. The applicant claimed that he did not 
discover  the  alleged  error  until  August  18,  2000.    However,  the  reason  for  the 
applicant’s discharge is well documented in his service record and is noted on his DD 
Form  214  (discharge  document).    The  applicant  should  have  discovered  this  alleged 
error on the date of his discharge or within three years thereafter. 
 
3.  The Board's regulations state that "[i]f an application is untimely, the applicant 
 
shall set forth reasons in the application why its acceptance is in the interest of justice.  
An untimely application shall be denied unless the Board finds that sufficient evidence 
has  been  presented  to  warrant  a  finding  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice  to 
excuse the failure to file timely."  The applicant did not offer a persuasive explanation 
for not filing his application sooner, but instead stated that he is in need of help because 
he is currently on worker’s compensation and suffers from other disabling conditions.  
 
 
4. In addition to the length of the delay and the reasons for it, the Board must 
also perform a cursory review of the merits in deciding whether to waive the statute of 
limitations in the interest of justice. See Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.D.C. 1992).   
 
 
5.    In  this  regard,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  show  that  the  Coast  Guard's 
determination that his high blood pressure pre-existed his entry on to active duty was 
in error or unjust.  Chapter 2-A-23 of the COMDTINST M1850.2B (Physical Disability 
Evaluation System) states that “[a] disability is incurred when the physical impairment 
is contracted or suffered as distinguished from a later date when the member’s physical 
impairment  is  diagnosed  or  renders  the  member  unfit  for  continued  duty.”    The 
applicant’s  problems  with high blood pressure were noted during his pre-enlistment, 
enlistment, and pre-training examinations. In fact before he was permitted to enlist, the 
applicant’s blood pressure was tracked for three days, after which he was found to be 
borderline acceptable.   
 

6.  Shortly after the applicant’s enlistment, a medical board determined that the 
applicant’s  high  blood  pressure  caused  him  to  be  unfit  for  active  duty.    The  medical 
board  also  determined  that  the  applicant’s  high  blood  pressure  existed  prior  to 
enlistment.  The applicant has not presented any evidence, except for his denial, that the 
conclusion of the medical board was in error or unjust. 
 
 
7.    The  applicant  has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim 
that his condition was incurred on or aggravated by a period of active duty.    He also 
has failed to provide sufficient evidence that would cause the Board to waive the statute 
of limitations in the interest of justice.   
 

8.  Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied. 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

_______________________________ 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

_______________________________ 
Gareth W. Rosenau   

_______________________________ 
Gloria Hardiman-Tobin