DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-039 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X., XXX XX XXXX 
XXX-XXX, XXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on January 29, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated March 13, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The  applicant  served  in  the  Coast  Guard  during  World  War  II.    He  asked  the 
Board to delete the discharge notation: “by reason of physical disability existing prior to 
enlistment,”  from  his  record.    He  stated  that  the  correction  should  be  made  to  have 
“[his] … personal records reflect true facts.” 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant alleged that the discharge notation is inaccurate and has no basis 
in  fact.    He  alleged  that  he  successfully  completed  “rigorous  boot  camp  and  several 
crossings of the Atlantic [Ocean while encountering] the enemy with no indication of 
any  physical  disability.”    He  asserted  that  on  the  return  from  one  such  enemy 
encounter,  he  was  hospitalized  due  to  what  medical  personnel  initially  diagnosed  as 
epilepsy but what he was later told was “fatigue.”  He alleged that prior to being given 
the  option  to  remain  in  the  Coast  Guard  or  to  receive  an  honorable  discharge  with 
disability  pay,  he  believes  that  he  received  electric  shock  therapy  and  other  related 

treatments for his fatigue condition.  He contended that prior to his separation, he was 
never provided with a final diagnosis of his condition. 

 
The applicant alleged that prior to his enlistment and after his discharge, he had 
never  been  told  by  any  physician  that  he  had  a  condition  that  existed  since  his 
childhood.  He asserted that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his  application  “because  the  notation  was  clearly  not  based  on  fact,  [as  he  has]  never 
had  a  condition  during  [his]  service  or  afterwards  that  could  be  traced  to  [a  pre-
existing] condition.” 
 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

On  December  3,  1942,  the  applicant  enlisted  as  an  apprentice  seaman  for  three 
years in the Coast Guard Reserve at the age of 17.  On the date of his enlistment, he was 
found to be physically qualified for enlistment and entered active duty.  On August 18, 
1943, the applicant was examined at a Coast Guard training station and found to be fit 
for sea duty. 

 
On  September  15,  1944,  the  applicant  experienced  an  epileptic  seizure,  during 
which he fell but sustained no injuries.  An entry in his medical history indicates that 
the applicant reported experiencing a similar attack between six and seven years earlier.  
The  evaluating  physician  found  that  sea  duty  would  be  hazardous  to  the  applicant’s 
well being and recommended that he be “transferred ashore at the first port of call in 
the [United] States.” 

 
On  October  10,  1944,  the  applicant  was  examined  at  a  United  States  military 
hospital  and  found  to  be  suffering  from  “930-yxx  epilepsy.”    A  Return  Medical 
Certificate,  entered  in  the  applicant’s  medical  record  on  this  date,  indicated  that  the 
applicant’s condition was an incident of service and that the applicant was fit for duty.  
He was admitted to a military hospital for outpatient evaluation.  On October 12, 1944, 
the applicant was again examined and found to be suffering from “u/o epilepsy, grand 
mal.”    The  examining  medical  officer  indicated  that  the  applicant’s  condition  was  an 
incident of service and that the applicant was not fit for duty.  As a result, the applicant 
was admitted for in-patient evaluation. 

 
On  October  25,  1944,  the  applicant  was  released  with  a  final  diagnosis  of 
“undiagnosed disease” and was referred for further examination.  A discharge entry in 
his  medical  records  indicates  that  he  reported  having  one  other  episode  of  “peculiar 
sensation in his jaw but [unlike on September 15th] no seizure or loss of consciousness.”  
He  stated  that  he  had  no  history of  headaches  or  dizziness  but  described  an  incident 
where he had been “kicked by a horse about 3 years [before] … and was unconscious 
for a short period.”  During his hospitalization, he experienced no seizures and received 
no treatment. 

 

On October 25, 1944, the applicant was transferred to a different hospital for in-
  His  medical  records  indicate  that  he  was  diagnosed  with 

patient  treatment. 
“psychoneurosis, mixed type (002-X0X).”  His history was assessed, as follows:   

and 

this  workup 

epilepsy 

includes  hydration-pitressin 

 
[The applicant] was always a repressed, shy, timid individual who could not express any 
hostility  and  who  had  neurotic  traits  in  childhood.    He  has  nightmares  that  have 
continued from childhood.  He would have episodes of anxiety with its somatic overflow 
when  exposed  to  tense  situations  but  could  function.    He  represses  and  suppresses  his 
hostility and develops anxiety symptoms as a result.  He has fainted several times prior 
to service life.  While aboard ship he had a spell of unconsciousness in which he bit his 
tongue but from the behavior he went through during this attack it appears that this was 
hysterical  and  not  epilepsy.    Clinical  and  complete  laboratory  examination  reveal  no 
evidence  of 
and 
electroencephalogram  tests.    In  reaction  to  having  possible  epilepsy  as  he  was  told 
aboard  ship,  his  anxiety  increased  so  that  he  had  palpitation,  tremors,  anxiety  dreams, 
increased  perspiration,  startle  reaction,  and  inability  to  concentrate.    He  developed  a 
chronic 
fatigue  syndrome  and  became  self-preoccupied  with  hypochondriacal 
rumination.  In view of the symptom[s] of hysterical stupors, sea duty is dangerous for 
him.    He  is  resistant  to  psychotherapy  and  the  prognosis  is  guarded.    He  should  be 
placed  on  limited  duty  ashore  for  the  duration  but  if  this  is  not  feasible,  he  should  be 
discharged  from  the  service  for  medical  reasons.    His  symptoms  are  endogenous  in 
origin  and  will  not  be  alleviated  by  removal  of  the  provocative  situations  found  in 
examination.  He is not a danger to himself and others and can be released to  his  own 
custody. 
 
On  November  24,  1944,  a  Medical  Board  of  Survey  convened  to  evaluate  the 
applicant’s status and to make a recommendation on his fitness for further Coast Guard 
service.  The Medical Board of Survey recommended that the applicant “be placed on 
limited shore duty for the duration or else be discharged from the service for medical 
reasons.”    The  Report  of  Medical  Survey  included  the  following  information:    the 
applicant was diagnosed with 002-X0X psychoneurosis, mixed type; his disability was 
not  the  result  of  his  own  misconduct  and  was  not  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty;  his 
disability existed prior to enlistment and was not aggravated by service; he was unfit 
for general duty; and the probable future duration of his condition was permanent. 

 
On  November  25,  1944,  the  Chief  Medical  Officer  forwarded  the  Report  of 
Medical Survey to the District Coast Guard Officer (DCGO) of the Third Naval District.  

 
On November 27, 1944, the applicant was discharged from in-patient treatment.  
He  was  assigned  to  temporary  duty  at  a  Coast  Guard  barracks  unit  while  awaiting 
action  on  the  Medical  Board  of  Survey.    On  November  28,  1944,  a  Final  Medical 
Certificate  was  issued  for  the  applicant’s  discharge.    The  certificate  mentioned  the 
recommendation  of  the  Medical  Board  of  Survey  and  recommended  an  “indefinite 
absence on account of sickness pending further action on his survey.”  At the time of the 

applicant’s  discharge  from  in-patient  treatment,  his  condition  was  assessed  as 
“improved” but he was found not fit for duty. 

 
On December 5, 1944, the applicant sought follow-up treatment at a military skin 

clinic.  He received two electrocardiograms on two separate occasions. 
 

On  December  6,  1944,  the  DCGO  of  the  Third  Naval  District  concurred  in  the 
recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of 
physical  disability  existing  prior  to  enlistment  and  forwarded  the  report  to  the 
Commandant  for  approval. 
  By  memorandum  dated  December  22,  1944,  the 
Commandant ordered the DCGO of the Third Naval District to honorably discharge the 
applicant but not prior to advising the applicant of his rights and benefits as a veteran 
to medical assistance from the Public Health Service.   

 
On  January  9,  1945,  the  applicant  certified  by  his  signature  that  the  Civil 
Readjustment Office informed him of all his rights and benefits under the Serviceman’s 
Readjustment  Act  of  1944.    The  form  executed  indicates  that  he  desired  to  file  an 
application for pension and received assistance in so doing. 

 
On  January  10,  1945,  a  Termination  of  Health  Record  sheet  was  entered  in  the 
applicant’s medical record, certifying that the applicant was examined and found to be 
suffering  from  psychoneurosis  that  was  neither  incurred  in  nor  aggravated  during 
service.  Also on this form, the applicant certified by his signature that, to the best of his 
knowledge and belief, he was suffering from psychoneurosis.   

 
Under  the  authority  of  Article  588  of  Coast  Guard  Regulations,  Headquarters 
Letter dated December 22, 1944 , the applicant was honorably discharged on January 11, 
1945  by  reason  of  physical  disability  existing  prior  to  enlistment.    As  a  result  of  the 
reason for his discharge, he was not recommended for reenlistment.  At the time of his 
separation, he was serving as a radioman third class and had 2 years, 1 month, and 9 
days of creditable service. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 28, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion  to  which  he  attached  a  memorandum  prepared  by  CGPC  on  this  matter.    In 
concurring  with  the  analysis  of  CGPC,  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the 
applicant’s request for relief. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that according to the applicant’s request for removal 
of  the  abbreviated  notation,  “issued  HD  #  A77011  by  reason  of  physical  disability 
existing prior to enlistment, Art. 588 Regs.: HL-12-22-44 (CG-783),” it is apparent that 
the  applicant  does  not  understand  the  terminology  that  describes  his  discharge.    He 

argued that the records reflect that the applicant was discharged for the psychological 
condition of neurosis, not the physical condition of epilepsy. 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that based on a review of the information contained in 
 
the  applicant’s  record,  he  finds  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  reason  for  the 
applicant’s separation, nearly 60 years ago, was in error.  However, he pointed out that 
in  accordance  with  Coast  Guard  regulations  in  effect  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s 
discharge, the record does not reflect that prior to his discharge, the applicant had been 
given the opportunity to demand a full and fair hearing on the results of the Medical 
Board of Survey.   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  despite  the  absence  of  this  information,  the 
applicant  clearly  endorsed  documents  that  described  the  condition  for  which  he  was 
being  separated.    Consequently,  he  argued  that  there  is  insufficient  evidence  in  the 
record to support amending the applicant’s discharge record. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  1,  2002,  the  Chair  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  He was granted a three-month 
extension and responded on October 9, 2002. 
 
 
The applicant argued that according to his recollection, the advisory opinion was 
incorrect  regarding  his  stating  that  he  experienced  seizures  prior  to  his  Coast  Guard 
service.    He  argued  that  in  its  review  of  his  medical  records,  CGPC’s  memorandum 
confirmed  that  medical  personnel  “found  no  evidence  of  epilepsy  but  does  reference 
‘chronic  fatigue  syndrome’.”    He  contended  that  his  state  of  chronic  fatigue  was 
precipitated by the “circumstances of stress from active warfare and assigned duties.”  
He argued that the notation that his condition “existed prior to enlistment” is in direct 
conflict with what he understood to be “battle fatigue.” 
 

The  applicant  argued  that  he  experienced  no  seizures  during  his  childhood  or 
after  he  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    In  support  of  his  contentions,  the 
applicant submitted a copy of his biography to “emphasize that [he] could hardly have 
handled the numerous responsibilities of the positions indicated with the burden of … 
[psychoneurosis].”  The applicant also submitted signed statements from (a) F, a close 
family friend; (b) F’s daughter; and (c) Dr. W, his current physician. 

 
The  applicant’s  close  friend,  F,  wrote that  she  lived  with  and  helped  raise  him 
from age seven until his early teens.  She wrote that she is aware of no record and has 
no  knowledge  of  the  applicant  “displaying  any  type  of  mental  disorder  or  disability 
throughout the years [she has] known him, up to and including the present date.”  She 
stated  that  she  only  recalled  the  applicant’s  receiving  initial  treatment  after  “being 

thrown  from  a  horse  …  and  knocked  unconscious,”  when  the  applicant  was  ten  or 
eleven.  She stated that the applicant received no follow-up treatments and suffered no 
permanent injuries from the accident. 
 

The daughter of F, C, wrote that she lived with the applicant during her teenage 
years.    She  stated  that  she  has  known  the  applicant  for  her  entire  life  and  never 
observed  him  losing  consciousness  or  display  any  symptoms  of  mental  disorders  or 
behavioral problems.   

 
The  applicant’s  current  physician,  Dr.  W,  wrote  that  she  has  been  treating  the 
applicant since April 22, 2002.  She stated that, although she is treating the applicant for 
some physical ailments, she has not found any evidence of a psycho-neurotic diagnosis. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  light  of  the  evidence  he  has  presented,  the  Board 
should delete any references from his record which indicate that he had a pre-existing 
physical disability. 

 
On December 5, 2002, the applicant submitted a letter, dated December 7, 1951, 
from the Veterans Administration, now currently the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
which  states  that  its  records  “show  that  [the  applicant]  is  in  receipt  of  disability 
compensation on account of service connected disability .…”  He stated that the letter 
supports his position that he did not suffer from any condition prior to service.   

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
During  World  War  II,  the  Coast  Guard  functioned  under  the  direction  of  the 
Navy, pursuant to 14 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3.  By Executive Order No. 9666, dated December 28, 
1945, the Coast Guard reverted to the Department of Treasury and operated under its 
own rules.   
 
Personnel Bulletin No. 54-44, issued on April 6, 1944, provided that a discharge 
 
by  reason  of  physical  (or  mental)  disability  of  a  member  will  be  effected  only  upon 
authorization  of  the  Commandant,  based  upon  report  of  a  Board  of  Medical  Survey.  
The bulletin does not  mention a member’s right to demand a full  and fair hearing or 
written  acknowledgement  in  rejection  of  such  hearing.    The  Commandant  cancelled 
Personnel Bulletin 54-44 in 1948 by the issuance of Personnel Bulletin 19-48. 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

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

 
1. 
§ 1552.   
 

2. 

The  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  nearly  sixty  years 
ago.  The alleged error or injustice was or, with reasonable diligence should have been 
discovered  in  January  1945,  when  the  applicant  certified  by  his  signature  that  he 
suffered  from  psychoneurosis  and  received  his  discharge  papers.    Title  10  U.S.C.  § 
1552(b) provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 
three years after the discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  The application was not 
timely. 
 
3. 

Failure to file within three years may be excused by the Board, if however, 
it  finds  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    The  interest  of  justice  is 
determined  by  taking  into  consideration  the  reasons  the  delay  and  the  likelihood  of 
success  on  the  merits  of  the  claim.    See  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of  Defense,  68  F.3d  1396 
(D.D.C.  1995).    The  application  in  this  case  is  dated  January  16,  2002.    Although  the 
applicant claimed that he did not discover the alleged error until he closely examined a 
replacement  copy  of  his  discharge  papers  in  October  2001,  the  Board  notes  that  the 
applicant apparently received these replacement copies sometime in the mid 1990s.  The 
Board  is  not  persuaded  that  he  has  explained  or  satisfactorily  demonstrated  by 
competent  evidence  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  failure  to 
apply within the time allotted. 
 
In addition to the length of 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.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.D.C. 1992).  To 
that end, the Board finds that the applicant has presented insufficient evidence to show 
that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice in determining that his condition 
of  psychoneurosis  existed  prior  to  enlistment.    Although  a  copy  of  the  applicant’s 
separation document (DD form 214) is missing from his service record, it does include a 
Termination of Health Record sheet.  This document, which the applicant authenticated 
with  his  signature  one  day  before  his  separation,  confirms  that  the  applicant  agreed 
with his diagnosis of psychoneurosis.  Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence 
in  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  agreed  with  the  reason  for  his  discharge  in 
1945. 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  record  indicates  that  after  a  review  of  the  applicant’s 
medical records, the Medical Board of Survey determined that the applicant’s disability 
existed prior to his enlistment.  In making this determination, the Medical Board relied 
not  only  on  the  applicant’s  own  statements  about  his  childhood  and  family  history, 
which were apparently made in conjunction with receiving treatment for his disorder, 
but  also  on  various  medical  observations  of  the  applicant  upon  his  admission  for  in-
patient  evaluation.    Absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  military  medical  officials 

4. 

5. 

6. 

are presumed to have performed their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  See 
Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the Board finds that 
his acceptance as fit for service, his subsequent combat experience, and his submissions 
concerning pre- and post-service conduct are insufficient to prove that the Coast Guard 
erred or committed an injustice in deciding that his condition of psychoneurosis existed 
prior to enlistment. 
 
 
Although  the  applicant  has  submitted  a  statement  from  the  DVA 
indicating that he has a service-connected disability, the Board finds that this statement 
is insufficient to warrant changing the medical finding that his psychoneurosis was not 
incurred  in  active  military  service.    Insofar  as  the  DVA’s  statement  is  the  only  one 
presented that connects the applicant’s military service to his disability, the Board is not 
persuaded that the applicant’s record is in error in light of the contrary evidence in his 
record.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  it  is  possible  that  prior  to  the  applicant’s 
discharge,  he  may  not  have  been  afforded  the  opportunity  to  demand  a  full  and  fair 
hearing by a Physical Evaluation Board, as set forth under Article 12-3-35B of the 1940 
Coast  Guard  Regulations.    Although  it  may  be  that  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  a 
hearing, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that he was not 
afforded all due process in effecting his separation from the Coast Guard.  The record 
shows  that  the  Coast  Guard  completed  the  Medical  Board  of  Survey  and  that  the 
applicant  agreed  with  the  reason  for  his  discharge  in  1945.    Consequently,  the  Board 
finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations because the 
applicant has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits in this case. 
 

7. 

8. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied for untimeliness. 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX,  XXX-XXX,  USCGR,  for  the 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher A. Cook 

 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
correction of his military record is denied.