DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2003-068 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 April 21, 2003 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 April 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he received a 
medical discharge or was retired due to a physical disability, instead of his discharge by 
reason of unsuitability.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  due  to  an  acute  shortage  of  personnel  onboard  the 
Coast Guard cutter to which he was assigned, he was subjected to extended periods of 
malnutrition and inadequate sleep and rest.  He alleged that as a result of his treatment 
and  the  fact  that  his  cutter  was  under  “constant  order[s]  …  for  search  and  rescue 
[missions], patrol[s] … [and overall] combat readiness,” he became overwhelmed and 
suffered a nervous breakdown.   

 
The applicant alleged that in concealing the poor conditions aboard his cutter, his 
command permitted members who were senior in rank to him to shirk their assigned 
duties.    He  further  alleged  that  when  he  was  being  processed  for  separation,  Coast 
Guard medical officers had him taking so much medicine, “[he] could not do anything 

… or think clearly [to] defend [himself].”    He alleged that his command and medical 
personnel worked together to “cover themselves.”   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  transition  to  civilian  life  has  been  difficult, 
especially during the last six years.  He alleged that because of his ordeal, he presently 
suffers  from  “shot  nerves,  stomach  problems  from  ulcers,  [and]  heart  problems  from 
nerves” and “cannot work anymore.”  He alleged that his need for extensive medical 
treatment is evident because he is on disability retirement through the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA).   
 

 
The applicant alleged that contrary to the way his career turned out, he intended 
to make the Coast Guard his permanent career, as evidenced by his final conduct mark 
of  4.0.    However,  he  alleged,  the  lasting  effects  of  his  nervous  breakdown  have 
remained with him.  He asked that the Board grant him the requested relief because he 
is  “tired  of  suffering” and  dealing  with  the “neglect  and  abuse  of  the  [DVA]  medical 
system ….”  He alleged that he discovered the error in his record on November 15, 2002. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On November 16, 1966, the applicant was placed on 14 days of sick leave.   

On  November  1,  1965,  the  applicant  enlisted  as  a  seaman  recruit  in  the  Coast 
Guard for a term of four years.  After completing recruit training on January 14, 1966, 
the applicant was promoted to seaman apprentice and assigned to a light vessel.   
 
 
 
 
On  January  30,  1967,  a  Board  of  Medical  Survey  issued  a  report,  in  which  the 
applicant  was  diagnosed  as  suffering  from  “personality  disorder,  schizoid  type”  that 
existed prior to his enlistment and was not incurred or aggravated in the line of duty.  
The report also included the following information in the “Summary of Case History” 
section: 
 

It is the opinion of this Board that the Evaluee does not meet the Standards for enlistment 
in the USCG as set forth in the CG Medical Manual (CG-294), Chap.3., and he does not 
meet the standards as set forth in Army Regulations 40-501., Chap. 2. 
 
Personal  appearance  of  the  Evaluee  before  a  Physical  Evaluation  Board  would  not  be 
deleterious to his mental well being. 
 
Disclosure of the information contained in this report to the Evaluee will not adversely 
affect his mental well being. 
 
If  released  into  his  own  custody  the  Evaluee  is  not  likely  to  constitute  a  menace  to 
himself or to the public safety and he is not likely to become a public charge. 

 

The summary also noted that a narrative summary was attached to the report, but the 
summary could not be found in the applicant’s record.   
 
Also on January 30, 1967, the applicant signed a statement certifying that he had 
 
been informed of the medical board’s findings that he was “unfit for USCG duty” and 
of the medical board’s recommendation that he “be released from the USCG by reason 
of  a  pre-existing  physical  defect.”    The  applicant  indicated  that  he  did  not  wish  to 
submit a statement in rebuttal.   
 
 
On February 1, 1967, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) concurred in the 
recommendations of the medical board and forwarded the report to the Commandant 
via the Group commander of the Third Coast Guard District.   
 
On February 15, 1967, Dr. G, a chief medical officer of the United States Public 
 
Health Service (USPHS), approved the findings of the Board of Medical Survey.  It was 
further  noted  that  Dr.  H,  a  USPHS  medical  director,  and  Dr.  T,  a  USPHS  surgeon, 
assessed  the  applicant  as  being  indefinitely  unfit  for  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard  and 
recommended  that  he  be  released  from  the  Coast  Guard  by  reason  of  a  pre-existing 
physical defect.   
 
 
On  February  20,  1967,  the  Commandant  responded  to  the  commander  of  the 
Third Coast Guard District.  He ordered that the applicant be advised that his discharge 
by  reason  of  unsuitability  under  Article  12-B-10(B)(2)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  was 
being  contemplated  and  that  the  applicant  be  afforded  the  opportunity  to  make  a 
statement on his own behalf.   
 
 
On March 1, 1967, the applicant was formally notified that, pursuant to Article 
12-B-10  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  Group  Commander  was  recommending  his 
honorable discharge from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability.  In noting that the 
applicant  had  previously  been  advised  of  the  findings  and  recommendation  of  the 
medical board, the Group Commander formally offered the applicant an opportunity to 
make a statement on his own behalf.  
 

By memorandum dated March 1, 1967, the applicant formally acknowledged that 
he  was  notified  of  his  CO’s  recommendation  that  he  receive  an  Honorable  Discharge 
from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability.  The applicant further indicated that 
he  did  not  wish  to  submit  a  statement  on  his  behalf.    On  the  same  day,  the  Group 
Commander  signed  a  First  Endorsement  on  the  applicant’s  acknowledgement.    The 
endorsement indicated that the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to submit a 
statement on his own behalf, as ordered by the Commandant on February 20, 1967, and 
that  the  Group  Commander  recommended  that  the  applicant  receive  an  Honorable 
Discharge.   
 

 
On March 6, 1967, the District Commander signed a Second Endorsement on the 
applicant’s acknowledgement, concurring with the recommendation that the applicant 
be honorably discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability.   
 
 
On  March  14,  1967,  the  Commandant  ordered  the  District  Commander  to 
discharge  the  applicant  by  reason  of  unsuitability  under  the  authority  provided  in 
Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual 
 
 
On  March  31,  1967,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of 
unsuitability  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  At the time of his separation, the applicant was credited with 1 year, 5 months, 
and 1 day of active duty service.   
 
Summary of the Applicant’s DVA Submissions 
 
 
On  February  6,  2003,  the  DVA  informed  the  applicant  that  his  January  9,  2003 
claim for increased compensation based on unemployability was denied.  The decision 
indicates that the DVA has found the applicant to be 10% disabled by a military service-
connected anxiety reaction, effective as of December 1, 1986.  The DVA has also found 
the applicant to be significantly disabled by various non-service-connected disabilities, 
including diabetes, hypertension, peptic ulcer disease, and the residuals of a myocardial 
infarction and coronary artery bypass in 1997. 
 
The  DVA  noted  in  its  decision  that  a  psychiatric  examination  of  the  applicant 
 
that  was  completed  at  a  local  DVA  medical  center  on  January  16,  2001,  found  no 
psychiatric disability.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 13, 2003, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  to  which  he  attached  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by 
CGPC.  In adopting the analysis of CGPC, the Judge Advocate General recommended 
that the Board deny the applicant’s request for relief.   
 
 
The  Judge  Advocate  General  argued  that  the  applicant  submitted  an  untimely 
application  and  has  provided  no  basis  or  reason  why  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to 
excuse  the  delay.    He  argued  that  the  applicant’s  request  was  submitted  more  than 
thirty-three years after the time for filing his application for correction had expired.  He 
argued that the record clearly shows that the applicant was, or should have been, aware 
of the alleged error within three years of his March 31, 1967 discharge.  He asserted that 
because the applicant has offered no explanation in support of his claim that he did not 
discover the error until November 15, 2002, the Board should not find it in the interest 
of justice to waive the statutory three-year filing deadline for this case.   

 

The Judge Advocate General argued that because the applicant has waited more 
than thirty-three years to challenge the alleged error before the Board, the doctrine of 
laches  applies  to  the  case  and  bars  the  applicant’s  entire  claim.    He  asserted  that  the 
doctrine  of  laches  prohibits  an  applicant  from  delaying  his  application  to  the  Board 
“while  the  evidence  regarding  this  contentions  becomes  lost,  stale,  or  inaccessible  or 
while the costs of investigating or correcting the matter accumulate.”  He argued that in 
this case, the Coast Guard has been caused substantial prejudice because its ability to 
“contact key witnesses” and obtain “key unit documents” may be severely hampered.  
In light of the delay between the alleged error and date of the application, he argued, 
the Board should dismiss the applicant’s claim with prejudice. 
 

The Judge Advocate General argued that the applicant’s record fails to establish 
his claim that he was improperly counseled concerning the basis for his discharge.  He 
argued  that  the  applicant’s  record  contains  no  evidence  of  an  injustice  committed 
against  the  applicant.    He  argued  that  neither  the  applicant’s  discharge  itself,  nor  the 
manner  in  which  the  discharge  was  effected  constitutes  “treatment  by  military 
authorities that shocks the sense of justice.”  See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 
868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 
1010, 1011 (1976)). 
 
 
The Judge Advocate General argued that the applicant presented no evidence to 
demonstrate that his discharge was erroneous or unjust.  He pointed out that the record 
indicates  that  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  Board  of  Medical  Survey  and 
subsequently  diagnosed  with  a  personality disorder  that  existed prior  to  his  entry  on 
active duty, rendering him unfit for continued service.  He asserted that the record also 
shows  that  upon  being  notified  of  the  medical  findings  and  his  recommended 
separation,  the  applicant  chose  to  make  no  rebuttal  statement.    He  asserted  that  the 
applicant  has  presented  no  evidence  showing  his  evaluation,  diagnosis,  or 
administrative processing to be in error or unjust.   
 

The Judge Advocate General argued that despite the fact that the applicant has 
developed  health  problems  36  years  after  his  discharge,  he  presents  no  evidence  that 
connects his current health problems with his Coast Guard enlistment.  He asserted that 
the applicant’s current conditions, for which he has received a DVA rating, did not exist 
at the time of his discharge.  He asserted that in that the applicant bears the burden of 
proof, the evidence he has provided is clearly insufficient to overcome the presumption 
of regularity afforded his military superiors.  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). 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On August 16, 2003, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  He was granted two extensions 
totaling four months, but no response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article  12-B-10.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1967  covers  discharges  by 
reason of  unsuitability.  Article 12-B-10(b)(2) provides that members “considered [by 
medical  authority  to  be]  unsuitable  for  further  service”  may  be  separated  with  a 
“character or behavior disorder” listed in Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual.   
 
 
Article 12-B-10(c)(2) states that “[w]hen psychiatric considerations are involved, 
the medical officer should be a psychiatrist, when available.”  It further provides that 
the  medical  officer  will  submit  a  narrative  summary,  which  describes  the  mental  and 
physical  conditions  of  the  member,  and  a  statement  “to  the  effect  that  the  individual 
was  and  is  mentally  responsible,  …  and  has  the  mental  capacity  to  understand  the 
action being contemplated in his case.”   
 
 
Article  12-B-10(e)(1)  provides  that  the  following  procedures  will  govern  the 
processing of all recommendations for discharge by reason of unsuitability for members 
with fewer than eight years of active duty service: 
 

[The  member]  will  be  notified  in  writing  of  the  proposed  discharge  action  and  the 
reasons therefore, and shall be given an opportunity to make any statement in his own 
behalf that he may desire.  If [the member] does not desire to make a statement, he shall 
set forth such fact in writing over his signature and it shall constitute his statement. 

 
Article  3.F.16.d.  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  a  “personality  [disorder]  … 
 
may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of a physical 
impairment.  Interference with performance of effective duty will be dealt with through 
appropriate administrative channels (see section 5-B).” 
 
 
Article  5.B.  deals  with  psychiatric  conditions  (including  personality  disorders).  
Article  5.B.2.b.  provides  that  personality  disorders,  such  as  schizoid  type,  are 
“disqualifying for appointment , enlistment, and induction … or shall be processed in 
accordance with Chapter 12, [of the] Personnel Manual ….” 
 

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: 
 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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

 
§ 1552. 
 
Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  an  application  must  be  filed  with  the  Board 
 
within  three  years  of the  date  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was  discovered  or  should 
have been discovered.  On March 31, 1967, the applicant was discharged from the Coast 
Guard  after  being  found  unsuitable  for  further  military  service  due  to  a  personality 
disorder.    On  November  21,  2002,  more  than  thirty  years  later,  he  submitted  his 
application for correction of his military record.  Contrary to the applicant’s claim that 
he  did  not  discover  the  error  until  November  15,  2002,  the  record  indicates  that  the 
applicant  either  knew  or  should  have  known  of  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  in  his 
discharge in March 1967, when he signed and received his discharge papers.  Therefore, 
the application is untimely.   
 
 
Failure to file within three years may be excused by the Board, however, if 
it finds that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  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.”     
33  C.F.R.  §  52.22.    In  this  case,  the  applicant  failed  to  explain  why  the  Board  should 
waive  the  statute  of  limitations.    Because  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was  or  with 
reasonable  diligence  should  have  been  discovered  in  March  1967,  the  Board  is  not 
persuaded  by  the  applicant’s  claim  that  he  only  first  learned  of  the  alleged  error  on 
November 15, 2002.   
 
In addition to examining the length of delay and the reasons, vel non, for 
 
it,  the  Board  must  also  perform  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  to  determine  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 applicant alleged that he should have received a medical discharge or 
been discharged due to a physical disability.  The record indicates that on January 30, 
1967,  a  Board  of  Medical  Survey  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering  from  a 
“personality  disorder,  schizoid  type.”    Subsequently,  Dr.  G,  a  chief  medical  officer  of 
the  USPHS,  approved  the  medical  board’s  findings  and  Dr.  H,  a  USPHS  medical 
director, and Dr. T, a  USPHS surgeon, recommended the applicant’s release from the 
Coast Guard by reason of a pre-existing physical defect.  Moreover, the applicant signed 
a statement acknowledging that he had been informed of (1) the findings of the January 
30, 1967 medical board and (2) the recommendation of the medical board, and did not 
wish to make a statement in rebuttal.  The Board notes that the applicant’s record does 
not  contain  a  copy  of  the  narrative  summary,  which  was  referenced  in  the  Board  of 
Medical Survey report.  However, the absence of such evidence does not overcome the 

4. 

5. 

6. 

strong  but  rebuttable  presumption  that  Coast  Guard  medical  officers  have  acted 
correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith  in  executing  their  duties.    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).    The  Board  finds  that  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record 
indicates that the applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder prior to 
his discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
Moreover, Article 12-B-10(e)(1) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1967 
provided for the discharge of members unsuitable for continued service, who like the 
applicant had been diagnosed with a type of personality disorder listed in Chapter 5-B 
of the Medical Manual.  Accordingly, as a member with fewer than eight years of active 
duty  service,  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  and  received  (1)  notice  that  he  was  being 
recommended for separation under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual and (2) an 
opportunity to make a written statement on his own behalf, but he waived the right to 
do so.  Consequently, the applicant has not proved that he was denied any due process 
by  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  properly 
effected under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual and Article 5-B of the Medical 
Manual.  
 
 
The applicant has presented no objective evidence that shows that at the 
time  of  his  discharge,  the  condition  of  his  health  was  misdiagnosed  or  that  he  was 
otherwise entitled to a disability separation.  The applicant’s DVA records establish that 
in 1986, he was diagnosed with chronic anxiety reaction and later in 1997, he suffered a 
heart attack and was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and peptic ulcer disease.  
While these conditions may render a member medically unfit for service, the applicant 
was not found to be suffering from these current ailments during his enlistment in the 
Coast Guard.  Therefore, the Board cannot find that the applicant should have received 
a medical discharge.   
 
 
the statute of limitations in this case, and the applicant’s request should be denied.   
 

Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive 

7. 

8. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

ORDER 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for the correction of 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
his military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger