Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket 
No. 2001-091 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

  FINAL DECISION  

The  final  decision,  dated  June  27,  2003,  is  signed  by  three  duly  appointed 

Ulmer, Chair: 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10, United States 
 
Code.    It  was  docketed  on  June  1,  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. 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was retired 
 
from active duty by reason of physical disability in the grade of lieutenant commander 
(LCDR)  retroactive  to  January  2,  198X,  the  date  he  was  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard. He also requested promotion to commander (CDR) in the Coast Guard Reserve 
on the date of his actual promotion; back pay and allowances as a retired LCDR from 
January  2,  198X  through  the  date  of  his  promotion  to  CDR,  USCGR  and  as  a  retired 
CDR from the date of promotion to CDR, USCGR to the present.  He further requested 
the re-computation of his retired pay using the total number of reserve points accrued 
as  of  that  date.    He  requested  that the severance pay he received upon his discharge 
from the Coast Guard be recouped from any back pay award that he may receive based 
on a correction to his record.  The applicant made the following alternative requests: 
 

1.    Disability  retirement  from  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  due  to  Bipolar  Disease 
and  other  causes  identified  in  his  Veteran's  Administration  disability  evaluation 
retroactive  to  the  date  he  was  placed  on  the  Reserve  Retired  list,  with  back  pay  and 
allowances  from  that  date.    He  also  requested  that  the  Coast  Guard  waive  the 
repayment of his severance pay. 
 

2.        Referral  of  his  case  to  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  for  full  and 
formal consideration in accordance with the Coast Guard Physical Disability Evaluation 
System  (COMDTINST  M1850.2C)  based  on  the  presumption  that  his  Bipolar  Disease 
arose  while  he  was  on  active  duty.    He  further  requested  promotion  to  CDR  in  the 
Reserve, effective on the day of his actual promotion, with back pay and allowances as a 
retired LCDR from 2 January 198X through the date of his promotion to CDR USCGR 

and back pay and allowances as a retired CDR from the date of his promotion to CDR 
until the present.  He also requested recomputation of his Reserve points and that the 
severance pay he received upon his discharge from active duty be recouped from any 
back pay that he may receive as a result of a correction to his record  
 
3.  The granting of such other relief as the Board deems equitable. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that his Bipolar Disorder1 was disqualifying for active duty 
 
under  the  standards  of  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  [DVA]  and  under 
COMDTINST  M6000.1B  (Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual).    He  further  alleged  that  his 
Bipolar Disease was incurred on and aggravated by his active duty as a regular Coast 
Guard officer between June 197X and January 198X.  The applicant stated that a Naval 
psychiatrist, who evaluated him in 199X at the request of the Coast Guard, supports his 
allegation that his Bipolar disease was incurred on and aggravated by his Coast Guard 
active duty service.   
 
 
The applicant explained that there is no explicit reference to Bipolar Disease in 
his  medical  record  because  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  diagnose  it,  despite  his  specific 
requests for psychiatric help in 19XX, the one year of counseling he received in the early 
70s, and the obvious decline in his performance in the early 1980s.  He asserted that the 
decline  in  his  performance  was  significant  enough  to  cause  the  flight  surgeon  to 
recommend the applicant's down-grade from aircraft commander to first pilot, together 
with  his  placement  on  antidepressants  for  sleep  related  problems.    He  argued  that 
Bipolar Disorder is difficult to diagnose because it usually manifests itself over a long 
period of time.  He alleged that he repeatedly sought assistance, but the Coast Guard 
failed to diagnose his Bipolar Disorder while on active duty.   
 
Background 
 
The applicant graduated from the Coast Guard Academy and served on active 
 
duty from June 3, 197X until January 2, 198X, when (according to the DD Form 214) he 
was  discharged  from  the  regular  Coast  Guard  because  he  was  not  selected  for 
promotion to CDR, after twice being considered for promotion to that grade.   However 
other  evidence  in  the  military  record  states  that  the  applicant  requested  voluntary 
discharge  from  the  regular  Coast  Guard,  which  was  approved  by  the Commandant.2   
Subsequent to his discharge on August 1, 198X, the applicant accepted a commission in 
                                                 
1   Bipolar is defined as "pertaining to mood disorders in which both depressive episodes and manic or 
hypomanic episodes occur.  Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 29th edition, p. 214.   
 
2  In an earlier BCMR case filed by this applicant (Docket No. 126-88) and not related the issues in this 
one,  the  Board  wrote,  "On  October  15,  198X,  the  applicant  requested  voluntary  discharge  from  the 
Regular Coast Guard.  On November 14, 198X, the Commandant approved his request for discharge and 
directed that he be separated on January 2, 198X.  The applicant was discharged as directed." 
 

the Coast Guard Reserve as a lieutenant (LT).  The applicant served in the Coast Guard 
Reserve until his retirement on July 1, 199X, at the rank of CDR.   
 
 
The  applicant's  Coast  Guard  Reserve  service  seemed  uneventful  until  about 
November 199X when during his quadrennial physical examination, he was found to 
exceed  the  Coast  Guard's  weight  standards.  The  applicant  noted  on  the  medical 
examination  form  that  he  had  been  taking  daily  doses  of  Zoloft  and  Depakote  since 
199X,  and  that  he  had  suffered  from  depression  or  excessive  worry  and  had  been 
treated for a mental condition.   
 
 
On  November  6,  199X,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  weight  probation  and 
directed  to  lose  all  excess weight by March 4, 199X.  The applicant did not meet this 
deadline and requested an extension of his probation, citing his medical condition and 
medication  as  the  reasons  for  his  inability  to  comply  with  weight  standards.    The 
applicant's command recommended that the Commandant disapprove the request for 
an extension of weight probation and requested that the applicant be transferred to the 
inactive status list (ISL)3.   
 
On April 7, 199X, the Commandant disapproved the applicant's transfer to the 
 
ISL. 
  The  Commandant  commented  that  the  applicant's  Bipolar  Disorder  was 
considered  physically  disqualifying  for  military  service  and  directed  the  applicant's 
command to arrange for a military psychiatric evaluation of the applicant and an initial 
medical  board  (IMB)4.  The  Commandant  also  directed  that  the  applicant  perform  no 
further Reserve drills.   
 
 
On  May  1,  199X,  a  Coast  Guard  clinic  physician  diagnosed  the  applicant  as 
suffering from clinical depression and referred him to the psychiatry department of a 
Naval hospital for further evaluation. 
 
 
A psychiatrist at the Naval hospital evaluated the applicant in two sessions.  The 
September 199X medical note indicates that the applicant was there for an evaluation of 
his  sleep  apnea  and  unipolar5  cyclical  depression  in  connection  with  his  pending 
medical board.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant was currently on medications 

                                                 
3      ISL  is  a  list  of  officer  personnel  in  the  Standby  Reserve  who  may  not  earn  points  for  retirement  or 
qualify for, or be promoted, and may not receive pay and allowances. 
 
4 A medical board is a clinical body normally comprised of one or more medical officers who describe an 
individual's  disease  or  injury,  the  physical  impairment,  and  the  impairment  of  function,  including  any 
latent  impairment.    It  includes  a  written  professional  opinion  on  whether  the  member's  physical  and 
mental  qualifications  satisfy  the  medical  standards  for  retention.    The  IMB  is  the  written  report  of  a 
medical board convened by an entity other than the president of the Central Physical Evaluation Board to 
evaluate a member's fitness for duty and to make recommendations consistent with the findings.   
 
5  Unipolar "[pertains] to mood disorders in which only depressive episodes occur."  Dorland's, p. 1911. 
 

with  good  control  of  his  hypomanic6  and  depressive  symptoms.    He  stated  that  the 
applicant's  "symptoms  have  been  pervasive  throughout  his  career  (primarily 
depression).  This has been confirmed by active duty flight surgeon."  The psychiatrist 
noted  that  the  applicant  was  morbidly  obese,  held  a  security  clearance,  and  had  no 
current  depressive  or  manic  symptoms.    He  also  noted  that  the  applicant  was  not 
suicidal, homicidal or psychotic and that his judgment and insight were within normal 
limits.  The psychiatrist scheduled a second evaluation for the applicant and requested 
that he bring his medical record.   
 
 
On  November  17,  199X,  the  applicant  had  his  second  evaluation  by  the 
psychiatrist in connection with the pending medical board proceedings.  He described 
the  applicant  at  that  time  as  mildly  agitated  and  anxious,  but  not  suicidal.    The 
psychiatrist stated that "documentation from active duty period demonstrates that [the 
applicant] suffered from this affective disorder while serving on active duty and that it 
was aggravated while on active duty as a helicopter pilot."  He again referred to a flight 
surgeon's report.  He diagnosed the applicant as suffering from Bipolar disorder with 
mixed features, primarily depression, with intermittent suicidal ideation (none current).  
He stated that the applicant needed to be "medically boarded from the Coast Guard" 
and  recommended  a  medical  board,  which  should  have  occurred while the applicant 
was on active duty.     
 
On  January  6,  199X,  the  applicant  had  a  medical  physical  evaluation  for  the 
 
purpose of his pending medical board.  He noted that he was taking Effexor, Lithium 
and Ritalin and had been treated for Bipolar Disorder and Depression.  The applicant 
also  indicated  that  he  had  or  has  suffered  from  the  following  while  in  the  military: 
frequent  or  severe  headaches;  dizziness  or  fainting  spells;  eye  trouble;  ear,  nose  or 
throat trouble; hay fever; head injury; pain or pressure in chest; cramps in legs; frequent 
indigestion; broken bones; tumor, growth, cyst, cancer, rupture/hernia; car, train, or air 
sickness;  and  frequent  trouble  sleeping.      In  response,  the  physician  noted  that  the 
applicant had a history of bilateral knee chondromalacia with occasional pain; history of 
rupture  patellar  tendon  left  leg  in  199X,  requiring  extensive  rehabilitation;  history  of 
chronic  prostatitis;  weight  gain  secondary  to  current/previous  medications; recurrent 
tennis  elbow;  history of esophageal spasm, acid reflux, intermittent but current; right 
leg  phlebitis  196X,  completely  recovered  within  three  months;  fractured  second 
metacarpal left hand; mild seasonal allergy; head injury 1981 NCNS; headaches as child 
resolved; struck in eye in 1975 playing racket ball resolved; fainting as child, but now 
gets disoriented;  and obstructive sleep apnea since May 199X. 
 
Initial Medical Board 
 

                                                 
6   Hypomania is defined as "an abnormality of mood resembling mania . . . but of lesser intensity." 
Dorland's, p. 864. 
 

On  January  8,  199X,  an  IMB  was  held  in  the  applicant's  case  to  determine  the 
applicant's  fitness  for  duty  due  to  Bipolar  Disorder,  Mixed7.    The  IMB  stated  the 
following: 
 

Review  of  the  evaluee's  Health  Record,  shows  that  the  evaluee  had  a 
routine  quadrennial  physical  on  6  Nov[ember]  199X.    Depression  was 
noted  and  the  evaluee  was  on  medication  of  Zoloft  25  mg  daily  and 
Depakote  250  mg  BID  at  that  time.    This  physical  was  erroneously 
qualified  by  both  the  examining  physician  and  the  reviewer,  for  at  that 
time,  the  evaluee  had  been  treated  for  depression  for  approximately  3 
years.  Previous physical examinations on 28 Nov[ember] 8X, 21 Oct[ober] 
8X [discharge physical] . . . , 12 Apr[il] 198X (annual aviator examination 
by  a  CDR  H)  revealed  no  significant  or  disqualifying  defects.    The 
examination  by  [CDR  H]  does  note  on  the  SF93;  "pt[patient]  has 
[occasional] anxiety with [problems] for a day or two - [patient] recently 
had close friend die and deaths in family.  It has been over 1 year since 
these  deaths  and  he  is  doing  well  with  only  normal  situational  job 
[problems]."  On the SF 88, Dr. H. qualified the evaluee for Service Group I 
aviation  assignments  (i.e.  pilot)  .  .  .,  and  did  not  note  any  defects,  nor 
recommend  further  examinations  .  .  .  A  thorough  review  of  the  health 
record  revealed  no  other  comments  whatsoever  regarding  the  evaluee's 
mental health, other than those noted above.   

 

 

The flight surgeon report referred to . . . by [ the Naval psychiatrist] was a 
letter  dated  11/18/9X  from  [CDR  H]  (now  retired),  which  was 
subsequently provided by the evaluee.  [CDR H's] actions in regard to the 
grounding  and  aircraft  accident  are  not  documented  in  the  evaluee's 
health record, however, [CDR H] found the evaluee fit for aviation duties 
in  April  198X  .  .  .  The  evaluee  had  also  provided  a  recent  letter  from  a 
Capt 
.  a  former  executive  officer,  concerning  the  evaluee's 
behavior/performance  at  this  same  period  of  time.    It  should  be  noted, 
that neither [CDR H] nor [the] Capt . . . questioned the evaluee's fitness for 
aviation duties or fitness for duty in the Coast Guard.   

. 

. 

PHYSICAL  EXAMINATION:  Physical  examination  on  6  Jan  199X  was 
unremarkable except for obesity.  Present medications: Effexor 75 mg BID, 
Lithium 300 mg BID, and Ritalin 10 mg BID. 
 
OPINIONS:    It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Board  that  the  diagnosis  of  Bipolar 
Disorder,  Mixed  is  correct,  that  the  patient  is  not  fit  for  full  duty  in  the 
U.S. Coast Guard and it is expected that the evaluee will never be fit for 

                                                 
7   "A mixed (Bipolar) Episode is characterized by a period of time (lasting at least 1 week) in which the 
criteria  are  met  both  for  a  Manic  Episode  and  for  a  Major  Depressive  Episode  nearly  every  day."  
Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, p. 362.  
 

full  duty.    Although  this  condition  may  have  begun  during  a  period  of 
active  duty,  it  is  clear  it  was  not  a  condition  of  sufficient  severity  to  be 
physically  disqualifying  (per  Medical  Manual)  or  a  disability  (per  PDES 
Manual), and the evaluee continued in a fit for full duty status until his 
separation  from  active  duty.    Further  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
condition was aggravated by reserve duty.   
 
RECOMMENDAITON:    Referral  to  Reserve  Personnel  Management 
Division for disposition    

 
 
On February 26, 199X, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the IMB.  In it, he 
alleged  that  the  IMB  disregarded  the  opinion  of  the  Naval  psychiatrist  that  the 
applicant's  Bipolar  Disorder  was  incurred  on  and  aggravated  by  active  duty.    He 
further alleged that the IMB did not have evidence of the medical treatment he received 
from a social worker prior to 1978 because the evidence was not in his medical record, 
and  although  he  requested  the  records  from  the  hospital  they  had  not  arrived  at  the 
time he submitted his rebuttal.  He also alleged that the IMB "[gave] undue weight to 
the  Coast  Guard's  failure  to  detect  [his]  condition  while  on  active  duty."    Last,  he 
argued  that  the  IMB's  conclusion  that  his  condition  would  have  been  neither 
disqualifying nor a disability was not justified.  In this regard, the applicant argued that 
if he had been diagnosed in the early 1970's, it would have been necessary, according to 
the Medical Manual, to process him through the physical disability evaluation system.   
 
 
the IMB to the applicant's command without action.  CGPC stated the following: 
 

On March 26, 199X, the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command returned 

[A] Physical Evaluation Board must find whether or not each disability is 
the proximate result of performing active duty or inactive duty training.  
In  reviewing  the  IMB  on  20  March  199X,  a  Central  Physical  Evaluation 
Board  that  included  a  [CDR]  in the Coast Guard Reserve was unable to 
find  a  link  between  [the  applicant's]  reserve  duties  and  his  diagnosed 
disability.    The  IMB  does  not  support  a  finding  that  the  disability  is 
connected to [the applicant's] service in the Coast Guard Reserve.  
 
A Claim by [the applicant] that he was disabled and unfit when released 
from  active  duty  must  be  handled  through  the  Board  for  Correction  of 
Military Records.    

On July 1, 199X, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve without pay 

 
 
until he reaches age 60.  
 
Statements Submitted by the Applicant 
 
 
1.    The  applicant  submitted  a  medical  note  from  a  civilian  nurse,  dated 
November 9, 199X.  The note indicates that the applicant referred himself for counseling 

for  the  purpose  of  exploring  the  severity  and  origin  of  his  feelings  of  depression, 
particularly in light of the fact that many of his family members suffered either from 
depression  or  Bipolar  Disorder.    The  note  states that the applicant felt overwhelmed, 
guilt,  and  a  lack  of  energy,  with  suicidal  ideation,  over  the  past  few  weeks.    No 
diagnosis was contained in this note.   
 
 
 
2.    In  a  November  18,  199X  letter,  the  flight  surgeon  (CDR  H),  who  was 
mentioned  in  the  Naval  psychiatrist's  report,  wrote  that  from  1980  to  the  summer  of 
1983, he and the applicant, whom he considers a friend, were stationed at the same air 
station.  He was the flight surgeon/family practice physician and only medical officer 
for the air station.  He stated that the applicant had informed him that the applicant was 
undergoing a fitness for duty psychiatric evaluation due to Bipolar Disorder, to which 
CDR H stated the following: 
 

I  feel  bad  that  I  did  not  help  [the  applicant]  get  diagnosed  sooner.    In 
retrospect,  he  seemed  to  meet  all  the  criteria  for  these  diseases.    [The 
applicant] is blessed with a very superior intellect and very friendly but 
overpowering personality, which makes any attempt to deal with him . . . 
a challenge.   
 
[The applicant] was known for never being in emotional control and never 
being  able  to  stay  on  task.    He  would  have  great  periods  of  energy . . . 
[b]ut  he  would  then  be  distracted  by  other  projects,  or  becoming 
emotionally detached and lose his ability to concentrate and care.  I spent 
hours in consultation with the two CO's and XO's that tried to get work 
out of him.   
 
I  grounded  [the  applicant]  once  and  then  concurred  with  downgrading 
him  from  aircraft  commander  to  first  pilot.    This  was  due  to  a  severe 
depressive  episode  that  occurred  about  the  time  he  made  a  wheels  up 
landing.  However, he had become distracted and despondent before the 
minor incident and I think the accident was the result of the depression 
and  inability  to  concentrate,  not  the  other  way  around.    There  was  also 
another period of time when he was what seemed overly distracted and 
despondent after a friend of his was killed in a CG helo accident.  I think 
he  was  briefly  treated  with  antidepressants,  but  only  for  "sleep"  so  we 
could preserve his ability to return to flying without the mandatory full 
psych evaluation and NAMI bureaucracy that it would have caused. . .  
 

 

* 

  * 

 

* 
 

I . . . [agree] that [the applicant's] behavior would be best explained by the 
diseases  with  which  he  is  now  diagnosed.    I  wish  him  well  with  his 
treatment and hope he will soon lose the "he's out of control because he's 

 

so  smart"  label  he  has  carried  with  him  his  entire  life.    This  very  poor 
excuse for his behavior never seemed right to me.  
 
3.   The applicant's XO8 for the period July 198X through June 198X submitted a 
statement  dated  November  18,  199X.    He  wrote  that  the  applicant  had  periods  of 
lethargy  and  very  high  energy.    He  observed  that  the  applicant  appeared  capable  of 
working long hours without fatigue.  He stated that during the applicant's high energy 
periods he was very quick, witty and cheerful.  At other times, according to the XO, the 
applicant was much quieter and seemed not to be himself; he was deliberate in speech 
and action.  The XO stated that at times the applicant seemed unusually tired, wherein 
he was compelled to ask the applicant about routine tasks during these periods.  The 
XO offered the following memory about the applicant:  "I vividly remember an occasion 
when [the applicant] spoke at a pilots meeting to admit that he had briefly fallen asleep 
while  flying  one  night  during  the  previous  week    .  .  .  (One  must  realize  that  falling 
asleep at any time while flying is in itself astonishing but to have it happen in that risky 
area  on  a  night  mission  when  adrenaline  normally  would  be  flowing  heavier  is 
incredible.)"   
 
 
4.  The applicant submitted a recent statement from another CDR9 who was at 
various times from 198X to 198X, the applicant's supervisor, first as operations officer 
(Ops)  and  then  as  XO.    The  Ops  described  the  applicant's  performance  during  the 
period  as  widely  variable,  fully  capable  of  outstanding  performance  one  minute  and 
incapable of completing the most routine task the next.  He recalled that during one of 
the  applicant's  low  periods,  the  applicant  mentioned  that  he  was  having  "disaster 
fantasies" in which he was involved in an aircraft crash and that each time he flew, he 
asked his wife to make sure that his children did not forget him.  The Ops continued: 
 

I was quite concerned about this, and told the applicant I wasn't sure he 
should be flying if he felt that way.  I . . . discussed it . .  with [CDR H] . . . 

                                                 
8  This individual was the applicant's supervisor for the performance period from January 1, 198X until 
June 3, 198X.  He gave the applicant 3s in managing resources and speaking skills and a 2 in occupational 
field skills.  In his comments the supervisor noted that the applicant performed poorly in managing the 
club and the club manager and that he had completed three assigned tasks late.  He also stated that the 
applicant had encountered some problems with flying.  He stated that the applicant had identified the 
problems  himself  and  it  was  the  supervisor's  opinion  that  "[the  applicant's]  problems  resulted  from 
inadequate exposure to flying . .  .  and a general feeling of discomfort and no confidence in himself or the 
helicopter (resulted from the death of a very close friend in a crash of a CG helicopter)."  The supervisor 
also wrote that the applicant displayed sound management and leadership traits in his position as Head 
of the Services Department.   
 
9   This individual was the applicant's supervisor on the OER for the period January 1, 198X to April 27, 
198X.  The applicant received no below average marks on this evaluation.  The supervisor wrote that the 
applicant had been reinstated as an aircraft commander.  He further commented, "[The applicant's] one 
weakness in this area is still an occasional tendency to be very heavy-handed, using his physical presence, 
command voice, and intelligence to intimidate subordinates.  In one case, he typed and sent a detailed 
memo  to  a  junior  officer  explaining  why  a  short  rough  draft  of  a  letter  should  have  been  written 
differently.  In that case, I feel that a short phone cal or conversation would have been more appropriate, 
but for the most part his counseling of subordinates concerning performance . . . is extremely well done." 

 
 
5.  The applicant submitted a statement dated February 22, 199X, from a captain, 
who in his capacity as a social worker treated the applicant for approximately one year 
some time between 197X and 197X.  The captain stated that he did not have any of the 
applicant's  medical  records  upon  writing  this  statement,  but  he  recalled  that  the 
applicant was referred to him by the dispensary psychiatrist for counseling to assist the 
applicant  with  enhancing  his  relationships  with  his  coworkers  and  his  ability  to  deal 
with phase of life problems.10  The captain stated the following: 
 

I do remember treating you for Phase of Life problems during that time 
period for approximately one year with weekly 45-minute psychotherapy 
sessions.    The  things  that  I  do  remember  that  stood  out  [was  the 
applicant's] very analytical approach to problem solving, setting goals that 
were  impossible  to  achieve  with  concomitant  feeling  of  inadequacy, 
frustration  and  periods  of  excitement  and  unwarranted  sorrow.    These 
periods  of  excitement  and  sorrow  were,  at  that  time,  considered  to  be 
within the normal range and did not appear to pose a threat to yourself 
and others.    

the Air Station Flight Surgeon. . .  As I recall, we decided to wait and see if 
[the  applicant's]  outlook  improved,  but  soon  afterwards  [the  applicant] 
made a "wheels up" landing while conducting a public demonstration . . . 
and  was  grounded.      .  .    He  was  then  downgraded  from  aircraft 
commander to first pilot or copilot for several months.  . . .  In hindsight I 
think we should have instead pursued a medical discharge or retirement 
of [the applicant] based on these cumulative events.  Most probably our 
decision  not  to  was  a  natural  reaction  trying  to  avoid  risking  [the 
applicant's career].   

 
 
6.    On  July  5,  XXXXX,  a  civilian  neuropsychiatrist,  who  has  treated  (and 
continues  to  treat)  the  applicant  for  manic-depressive  illness  and  sleep  apnea  since 
199X, wrote that the applicant has had both of these conditions during most of his adult 
life,  including  the  period  of  his  active  duty  service.    This  individual  stated  that  the 
applicant's  manic-depressive  illness  has  resulted  in  recurring  episodes  of  serious, 
sometimes  incapacitating  depression,  extending  back  to  active  duty.    This  diagnosis, 
according  to  this  individual,  is  consistent  with  that  of  the  flight  surgeon  and  the 
applicant's two former active duty supervisors.  
 
 
The  nueropsychiatrist  stated  that  the  applicant's  sleep  apnea,  which  has  been 
confirmed  by  polymnography,  has  been  the  cause  of  his  long-standing  problems 
                                                 
10   A clinical note dated November 7, 197X corroborates the captain's statement that the applicant was 
referred  to  him  for  counseling.    The  medical  note states that the applicant's main problem at that time 
"centered around a constant need to be first coupled with a feeling of low self-esteem.  He is motivated to 
work on his problems and this should be regarded as an asset for the future."    The note further stated 
that the captain agreed to counsel the applicant once a week for patient oriented supportive, non-directive 
psychotherapy.  The captain stated that he found "[the applicant] as extremely competent to continue in 
his career as a Coast Guard Flight Officer."   

staying  awake  while  driving  and  flying.    According  to  this  doctor,  the  sleep  apnea 
diagnosis  is  consistent  with  the  experiences  documented  in  the  letter  from  the  flight 
surgeon and the applicant's former active duty supervisors.    
 
Pertinent Excerpts from Copies of the Applicant's Medical Record 
 
 
According  to  the  evidence  of  record,  the  applicant  had  five  complete  physical 
evaluations  while  on  active  duty.    The  dates  for  these  evaluations  were  February  22, 
198X,  April  8,  198X,  April  7,  198X,  April  12,  198X,  and  October  21,  198X.    On  each 
examination except for the one dated April 12, 1983, the applicant indicated that he had 
never attempted suicide, never had frequent trouble sleeping, depression or excessive 
worry, or never had nervous trouble of any sort or been treated for a mental condition.  
The applicant indicated on the forms he completed for his April 12, 198X annual flight 
physical, that he had frequent trouble sleeping, depression, and or excessive worry.  In 
this  regard,  the  physician  stated  the  following:    Patient  has  occasional  job  related 
anxiety and problems sleeping for a day or two -- patient recently had a close friend die 
and deaths in family.  It has now been more than a year since these deaths and he is 
doing well with any normal situational job problems."     
 
Pertinent Excerpts and summaries from the Applicant's Performance Record 
 
Active Duty 
 
The applicant's performance record reveals from 197X until approximately 198X, 
 
he performed his duties in an excellent manner.  In addition to the comments discussed 
in footnotes 1 and 2, the applicant encountered some problems in his performance as 
the  as  chief  of  the  teleprocessing  services  branch.    In  officer  performance  evaluations 
(OERs) covering the periods September 1, 198X to December 31, 198X and from January 
1, 198X to July 31, 198X, the applicant received marks of 3 in writing skills, occupational 
field skills, and judgment on two performance evaluations. Some of the comments on 
these OERs were:   
 
"Immerses  himself  in  the  activities  of  the  Branch  for  familiarization  purposes  and  to 
educate/assist  subordinates.    Needs  to  recognize  when  this  involvement  is  required 
vice something that is purely self-gratifying. "    
 
"In  dealing  with  problems  as  more  than  just  obstacles  to  overcome,  he  sometimes 
overacts; i.e., recommending quick and complicated solutions to routine administrative 
problems."   
 
"[I]n  his  enthusiasm  to  "please  all  of  the  people  all  of  the  time",  tends  to  over  task 
himself and his Branch thereby losing sight of his original goals. Thus, some projects are 
always in the development stage with completion just around-the corner."   
 

The applicant's last two active duty OERs for the period August 1, 198X to March 
31, 198X and from April 1, 198X to January 2, 198X, contain average to above average 
marks, with the reporting officer describing the applicant as an exceptional officer. 
 

The applicant's active duty record also reveals that he graduated from the Coast 
Guard Academy and successfully completed flight school and the Naval Post graduate 
school.    His  record  contains  numerous  letters  of  appreciation  and  awards.      He  also 
regained his aircraft commander certification after losing it after the wheel up landing. 
 
Reserve Performance Record 
 

The  record  does  not  contain  any  evidence  that  the  applicant  encountered  any 
performance difficulty in his Reserve career, reaching the rank of CDR, until December 
19, 199X, when he was determined to be out of compliance with weight standards.  The 
applicant indicated on forms completed for this physical evaluation that he was taking 
daily doses of Zoloft and Depakote.  He also indicated that he had been treated for a 
mental condition and that he had suffered from depression and excessive worry.   The 
physician noted that the applicant suffered from clinical depression.   
 
Department of Veterans Affairs Rating [DVA] Decision 
 
After the Applicant's retirement from the Coast Guard Reserve, he submitted a 
 
claim  for  disability  compensation  to  the  DVA,  which  granted  the  applicant  a  50% 
service connected disability rating for Bipolar Disorder effective March 2, 199X.11  The 
DVA's 50% disability rating was assigned because it determined that the applicant had 
occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity resulting 
from some of the following symptoms:  "flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, 
or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding 
complex commands; impairment of short-and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only 
highly  learned  material.  Forgetting  to  complete  tasks);  impaired  judgment;  impaired 
abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and 
maintaining effective work and social relationships." 
 
 
The DVA report states that the applicant's military medical record reveals during 
the  period  from  June  27,  19XX  to  January  2,  19XX,  the  applicant  was  treated  for  a 
neuropsychiatric  condition.      The  report  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been treated in 
19XX by a psychiatrist and in 19XX by a social worker.   
 
The  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  DVA  psychiatrist  on  June  5,  199X  and 
 
diagnosed  as  having  the  following  conditions:    Bipolar  disorder  and  obsessive-
compulsive disorder traits, obesity, sleep apnea, and knee problems.  The DVA Mental 
Status Examination found that the applicant was alert, oriented, and cooperative with 
                                                 
11   The DVA also granted the applicant service connection for his fracture 2nd metacarpal, left hand with 
a 0% disability rating; service connection for bilateral chondromalacia with a 10% disability rating; service 
connection for chronic prostatitis with a 10% disability rating.   

the interview.  His speech was of normal speed and his thought processes were logical 
and  coherent,  with  no  evidence  of  loosening  of  associations  or  flight  of  ideas.    There 
was no evidence of delusions or suicidal or homicidal ideations.  There were no current 
auditory  or  visual hallucinations and memory was intact.  The psychiatrist wrote the 
following  about  the  applicant's  insight.    "[The  applicant's]  insight  into  his  present 
condition appears to be intact, and his judgment at this time appears to be okay as he is 
currently  under  the  care  of  a  psychiatrist  and  receiving  treatment  with  medications, 
although he does report times of impulsivity when he gets into a more manic episode."   
The  psychiatric  report  stated  that  it  appeared  that  the  applicant's  symptoms  had 
impaired  his  functioning  at  work,  as  the  applicant  reports  that  on some occasions he 
will have many ideas, generate a lot of work, and at other times when his mood is lower 
he is quite sluggish and unable to get things done.  It also states that the disease has 
impaired the applicant's home life creating conflict between him and his wife.   
 
On November 20, XXXX, the DVA granted the applicant a 50% service connected 
 
disability rating for sleep apnea.  The DVA report noted that the applicant had sleep 
apnea  symptomatology  while  on  active  duty  and  he  was  recently  treated  for  the 
condition  at  a  DVA  medical  center.    The  report  stated  that  current  medical  evidence 
shows that the applicant has mild dyspnea on exertion and experiences mild afternoon 
fatigue.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
On  February  23,  2003,  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  commented  that  the  applicant's  active  duty  records  contain  no 
evidence of a Bipolar Disorder diagnosis and the only evidence that the disease existed 
during the applicant's active duty period was constructed years (1997 and later) after 
his 1986 discharge.  In this regard the Chief Counsel stated the following: 
 

* 

 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Applicant  contends  that  the  Coast 
Guard should have retired him with a ratable disability, it should be noted 
that throughout the Applicant's active duty career he was found capable 
of performing all the duties assigned to him.  This fact is made stronger by 

In his health record, Applicant consistently responded in the negative to 
any  question  concerning  depression,  nervous  disorder,  suicidal 
tendencies, or trouble sleeping.  The Applicant argues that the DVA rating 
decision  of  60%  for  his  conditions  substantiates  an  error  with  respect  to 
the Coast Guard's failure to rate him for a disability retirement.  The sole 
basis for a physical disability determination in the Coast Guard was (and 
is)  unfitness  to  perform  duty  .  .  .  Any  long-term  diminution  in  the 
Applicant's earning capacity attributable to his military service is properly 
a matter for the DVA, not the Coast Guard or the BCMR.   
 

  * 

 

* 

the fact that the Applicant had a successful career as a reserve officer after 
his discharge from active duty.   

   

The Chief Counsel stated that the findings of the DVA regarding the applicant’s 
alleged  disabilities  have  no  bearing  or  legal  effect  on  the  Coast  Guard’s  medical 
findings.    In  this  regard,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  DVA,  taking  the  whole 
person  into  consideration,  determines  to  what  extent  a  veteran’s  civilian  earning 
capacity  has  been  reduced  as  a  result  of  physical  disabilities  and  provides 
compensation.  In contrast, the Coast Guard determines if a member is unfit to perform 
his  military  duties  and  then  rates  to  what  extent  the  medical  condition  prevents  the 
member from performing his duties.  He further stated as follows: 
 

to 

The  procedures  and  presumptions  applicable 

the  DVA 
evaluation process are fundamentally different from, and more favorable 
to the veteran than, those applied under the PDES (Coast Guard’s Physical 
Disability Evaluation System).  The DVA is also not limited to the time of 
Applicant’s retirement from the Service.  If a service-connected condition 
later becomes disabling, the DVA may award compensation on that basis.  
The  DVA's  finding  that  the  Applicant  was  60%  disabled  due  to  a 
combination of disorders isn't binding on the Coast Guard nor indicative 
of an error by the Coast Guard at the time of the applicant's discharge. 

 
 
With respect to the applicant's several allegations of error in the IMB process, the 
Chief  Counsel  stated  the  IMB  was  properly  constituted  because  regulations  do  not 
require that a board certified psychiatrist sit on the IMB, even if a mental disability is 
being considered. He stated that the IMB considered all of the evidence and afforded 
the applicant all the rights required under the regulation.   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  show  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by 
not  evaluating  him  under  the  physical  disability  evaluation  system  while  on  active 
duty. He stated that absent strong evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that Coast 
Guard officials carried out their duties lawfully, correctly, and in good faith.  Arens v. 
United States, 969 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1990).   
  
Applicant's Response to the Coast Guard Views 
 
 
On  April  3,  2003,  the  applicant  submitted  a  reply  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 
Guard.  He stated that the Coast Guard should accept and act on the written evaluation 
of  the  Naval  psychiatrist,  who  determined  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  Bipolar 
Disorder that was incurred on active duty.  In addition, the applicant points out that the 
Navy psychiatrist stated that the disorder "should have been handled on active duty."    
The applicant also quoted from current letters he obtained from the flight surgeon and 
the neuropsychiatrist.  Both doctors stood by their earlier statements.  One doctor wrote 
that  there  is  ample  evidence  in  the  applicant's  record  that  he  suffered  from  Bipolar 

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 

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

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application is timely. 
 
 
33 CFR 52.51.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
3.  Not only must the applicant prove that he incurred Bipolar Disorder while on 
 
active duty, he must also prove that he was unfit to perform the duties of his grade and 
rank as a result of this disease while on active duty.  The applicant has not shown by a 
preponderance of the evidence that during his active duty service from 197X to 198X, he 
suffered from Bipolar Disorder. There is some evidence that while on active duty, he 
experience some symptoms that possibly could have been the early warning signs that 
he would eventually develop a Bipolar Disorder.  There are no entries in his medical 
record  showing  that  he  was  ever  diagnosed  with this disorder, while on active duty.  
Moreover,  during  the  required  medical  examinations  while  on  active  duty,  the 
applicant  denied  that  he  had  experienced  depression,  nervous  disorder,  suicidal 
tendencies or trouble sleeping, except during a 198X examination in which he indicated 
that  he  had  had  trouble  sleeping,  depression,  and  excessive  worry.    His  active  duty 
medical record indicates that CDR H (the flight surgeon) who examined the applicant, 
attributed these problems to job related anxiety and the death of a friend.  There is no 
evidence in the active duty medical record indicating that the applicant was ever placed 
on medications for the treatment of depression (although temporarily given medication 
to help him sleep), lost time form work due to depression or some other mental illness, 
or was considered unfit to perform his duties.  In fact, CDR H qualified the applicant for 
flight duties during the 198X physical examination.   
 

Disorder while on active duty.  The neurospychiatrist expressed concern that the IMB 
made a decision without having a psychiatrist as a board member.    
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

4.  The 19XX medical note from the social worker indicated that his counseling 
sessions with the applicant "centered around a constant need to be first coupled with a 
feeling  of  low  self-esteem."    However,  the  social  worker  wrote  that  he  found  the 
applicant  "extremely  competent  to  continue  in  his  career  as  a  Coast  Guard  Flight 
Officer."  
 

5.  The various recent statements submitted by the applicant are insufficient to 
establish  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  Bipolar  Disorder  while  on  active  duty  and 
that he was unfit to perform his duties due to such a disability.  In recent statements on 
behalf  of  the  applicant,  CDR  H  (the  flight  surgeon),  as  well  as  two  of  the  applicant's 
active  duty  supervisors,  mentioned  the  applicant's  inability  to  focus  at  times,  his 

6. 

depression  over  a  his  friend's  death,  and  his  wheels  up  landing  resulting  in  the 
applicant's being downgraded from aircraft commander to first pilot.  However, CDR H 
never states that it was his medical opinion that the applicant suffered from a Bipolar 
Disorder  in  198X.    He  stated  that  in  retrospect  the  applicant  seemed  to  meet  all  the 
criteria for the disease.   Moreover, in his April 12, 198X, evaluation of the applicant for 
his annual flight physical, he wrote the following:  "Patient has occasional job related 
anxiety and problems sleeping for a day or two -- patient recently had a close friend die 
and deaths in his family.  It has now been [more than] 1 year since these deaths and he 
is doing well with any normal situation job problems."  From this evidence, the Board 
concludes that CDR H was not concerned that the applicant's depression was anything 
other  than  a  temporary  matter.      CDR  H  found  the  applicant  fit  for  duty,  including 
flight  duty.    If  at  the  time  that  he  examined  the  applicant,  CDR  H  believed  that  the 
applicant  suffered  from  a  Bipolar  Disorder,  he  certainly  would  not  have  found  him 
qualified  to  fly  an  aircraft,  without  putting  him  through  a  fitness  for  duty 
determination.   
 
 
  The  other  evidence,  from  the  Navy  psychiatrist  and  the  civilian 
neuropsychiatrist,  is  equally  unpersuasive  in  establishing  that  the  applicant  suffered 
from  Bipolar  Disease  and  was  unfit  to  perform  his  duties  while  on  active  duty.    The 
Naval psychiatrist who examined the applicant in 199X for the IMB, stated that based 
on "documentation from his active duty period" (referencing the CDR H's report) it was 
his opinion that the applicant's Bipolar Disorder was incurred on and aggravated by his 
active  duty.    This  psychiatrist  does  not  relate  any  other  specific  evidence  from  the 
applicant's medical or performance record covering a period of approximately 15 years 
of  active  duty  to  support  his  conclusion  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  Bipolar 
Disorder  while  on  active  duty.    His  evaluation  of  the  applicant  does  not  provide  the 
Board with a detailed description of the applicant's medical, family or social history; for 
instance the psychiatrist does not discuss how soon after his discharge did the applicant 
began treatment with a civilian psychiatrist.  The neuropsychiatrist began treating the 
applicant in 199X, well after his discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
7.  The letters from the applicant's two active duty supervisors from the 1980's 
 
suggest  that  the  applicant  at  times  had  difficulty  focusing  and  that  he  suffered  from 
"depression" upon his friend's death.  However, suffering a short-term depression upon 
the death of a close friend does not seem unusual.  Each of the supervisors also reported 
that  at  times  the  applicant  seemed  to  have  boundless  energy.  Whether  these  were 
symptoms  of  oncoming  Bipolar  Disorder  or  not,  this  Board  concludes  that  the 
applicant's fitness for duty was not in question since neither supervisor took any steps 
to have the applicant medically examined.    
 
 
 
8.  Article  2.C.2.b.  of  M1850.2c  (Physical  Disability  Evaluations  Manual)  states 
that  disability  separation  or  retirement  is  designed  to  compensate  a  member  whose 
military  service  is  terminated  due  to  a  physical  disability  which  renders  the  member 
unfit for continued duty.  It further states that neither the disability evaluation system 
nor the law at 10 U.S.C., Chapter 61 is to be "misused to bestow compensation benefits 

on those who are voluntarily or mandatorily retiring or separating and have therefore 
drawn  pay  and  allowances,  received  promotions,  and  continued  on  unlimited  active 
duty  while  tolerating  physical  impairments  that  have  not  actually  precluded  Coast 
Guard  service."    Therefore,  even  if  the  applicant  did  have  Bipolar  Disorder  while  on 
active duty, it was not Bipolar that caused his separation from active duty.  As noted by 
the  BCMR  in  an  earlier  unrelated  case  filed  by  this  applicant,  he  requested  to  be 
discharged  and  the Commandant approved that request.  The applicant's active duty 
career  was  not  cut  short  by  a  physical  disability,  but  by  the  applicant's  request  to  be 
discharged, as confirmed by his last active duty OER.  However, under 14 U.S.C. § 283 
and the Article 12.A.13.f. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant could have remained 
on active duty as a twice-failed LCDR until he earned 20 years of active service, upon 
which he would have been retired.  
 
 
9.    Since  the  applicant  continued  to  perform  his  duties  until  the  time  of 
separation from active duty, there is a presumption that he was fit for duty.  In order to 
overcome  this  presumption,  the  applicant  must  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  that  (1)  because  of  the  disability,  he  was  physically  unable  to  perform 
adequately in his assigned duties; or (2) because he suffered an acute, grave illness or 
injury  immediately  prior  to  or  coincident  with  processing  for  separation,  which 
rendered him unfit for further duty.  A review of the applicant's service record reveals 
that  he  more  than  adequately  performed  his  duties,  while  encountering  some 
challenges.  Although he lost his aircraft commander designation in the early 1980's, he 
regained that status.  He went on, as the advisory opinions points out, to have a solid 
career in the Coast Guard Reserve.  The applicant has failed to rebut the presumption 
that  he  was  fit  for  duty  while  on  active  duty.      Since  he  has  failed  to  rebut  this 
presumption,  his  case  should  not  have  been  referred  for  a  disability  evaluation.  
Chapter  2.C.2.b.(2)  of  COMDTINST  M1850.2C  states,  "A  member being processed for 
separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability shall not be referred 
for disability evaluation unless he [overcomes the presumption of his fitness for duty]", 
which the applicant has not done.   
 
10.   In light of the above findings, the Board finds that the Coast Guard did not 
 
commit  a  violation  of  Chapter  5.B.10  of  the  Medical  Manual  in  not  processing  the 
applicant through the Physical Disability Evaluation System for alleged Bipolar disease 
upon his discharge from active duty.  Moreover, a referral would not have guaranteed 
that the applicant would have been found unfit to perform his duties.  Chapter 3.F.(2) of 
the Medical Manual states that possessing a member for a disqualifying condition does 
not mean automatic retirement or separation.  This section reinforces unfitness for duty 
as the standard on which a disability retirement or separation is to be based.   
 
 
11.  The fact that the DVA granted the applicant a service-connection for Bipolar 
Disorder is not proof by a preponderance of evidence that the Coast Guard committed 
an  error  or  injustice  by  not  granting  him  a  discharge  due  to  physical  disability.    The 
Court  of  Federal  Claims  has  stated  that  "[d]isability  ratings  by  the  Veterans 
Administration [now the Department of Veterans Affairs] and by the Armed Forces are 

made for different purposes.  The Veterans Administration determines to what extent a 
veteran's  earning  capacity  has  been  reduced  as  a  result  of  specific  injuries  or 
combination  of  injuries  [citation  omitted].    The  Armed  Forces,  on  the  other  hand, 
determine to what extent a member has been rendered unfit to perform the duties of his 
office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  a  physical  disability  [citation  omitted] 
Accordingly, Veterans' Administration ratings are not determinative of issues involved 
in military disability retirement cases."  Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983). 
 
 
 12.  The applicant complained that he had other medical conditions, in addition 
to the Bipolar Disorder for which he should have been granted a disability separation. 
However  all  of  the  other  conditions  mentioned  by  the  applicant  were  noted  in  his 
medical  record.    Apparently,  these  conditions  did  not  interfere  with  the  applicant's 
ability to perform the duties of his rate and grade.   
 
13.  The applicant has also failed to establish a causal link between his Bipolar 
 
Disorder and his reserve duties, which normally consist of one weekend drill per month 
and short periods of active duty training.  The applicant would be entitled to a medical 
retirement as a Reservist, if he establishes eligibility under either 10 U.S.C. § 1201 or 10 
U.S.C §1204, which requires a showing that his Bipolar Disorder and unfitness for duty 
were the proximate result of performing active duty or inactive duty training.   It would 
be very difficult for the applicant to show that his Bipolar Disease was incurred during 
a weekend drill or a short period of active duty.  The evidence offered by the applicant 
shows  that  he  was  diagnosed  and/or  treated  by  a  civilian  psychiatrist  for  a  mental 
disorder beginning some time in 199X.  However, the applicant did not bring this to the 
attention  of  the  Reserve  program  until  a  199X  physical  examination in which he was 
determined  to  be  overweight.    The  applicant  performed  his  Reserve  duties  in  an 
excellent  manner.    Accordingly,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  establish  that  the  Bipolar 
Disorder was the proximate result of Reserve active duty or active duty training.  Nor 
has he shown that he was unfit to perform those duties.  
 
 
14.  There is no merit in the applicant's argument that the IMB was not properly 
composed  because  it  did  not  include  a  psychiatrist  as  a  member.    Chapter  3.C.1  of 
COMDTINST  does  not  require  a  psychiatrist  to  be  a  member  of  an  IMB  even  when 
considering a mental disability.  Chapter 3.C.3 requires a psychiatrist to be a member of 
a medical board if there is a question of mental competency.  There is no evidence in the 
record that the applicant was or is incompetent. In addition, the Navy psychiatrist who 
evaluated  the  applicant  specifically  for  the  IMB  stated  that  his  judgment  and  insight 
were within normal limits, as did the DVA psychiatrist who examined him on June 5, 
199X.    
 
 
15.  All of the applicant's contentions have been considered; those not discussed 
within  the  Findings  and  Conclusions  are  either  irreverent  or  not  dispositive  of  the 
issues in this case.   
 

 
16.   In conclusion, the Board finds that the Coast Guard properly discharged the 
applicant  in  198X  at  his  request.    There  is  insufficient evidence in the medical record 
establishing that the applicant suffered from Bipolar Disorder while on active duty.  The 
applicant  has  also failed to rebut, by a preponderance of the evidence, the fitness for 
duty presumption created by the fact that he adequately performed his duties until he 
was separated from the active duty Coast Guard.    Neither has the applicant shown 
that his Bipolar was incurred on or aggravated by his Reserve service.  Accordingly, the 
Board finds no basis on which to grant relief.  The applicant's request should be denied. 
 
 
 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR (Ret.), for the correction of his military 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 

 
 Patricia R. Collins 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer