DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-088 
 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on  April  1,  2004,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  30,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  initially  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by 
upgrading  his  RE-4  (not  eligible  to  reenlist)  reenlistment  code  to  an  RE-3  (eligible  to 
reenlist except for disqualifying factor: physical disability) so that he could reenter the 
service.  The  applicant's  most  recent  reenlistment  occurred  on  January  13,  2001,  for  a 
four-year  term.    He  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  January  14,  2003,  by 
reason  of  physical  disability  due  to  Crohn's  disease  rated  as  10  percent  disabling,  for 
which he received severance pay.    He was given a JFL (physical disability) separation 
code and an RE-4 reenlistment code.   At the time of his discharge he had served a total 
of five years, eleven months, and twenty days on active duty. 

 
The applicant alleged that he was erroneously diagnosed and separated from the 
Coast  Guard  for  having  Crohn's  disease,  which  was  later  determined  by  the 
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  to  be  a  bacterial  infection.    In  support  of  his 
contention, he submitted an August 21, 2003, letter from a DVA gastroenterologist who 

wrote  that  based  upon  his  examination  and  diagnostic  testing,  the  applicant  did  not 
suffer from Crohn's disease.  The letter reads as follows: 
 

[The  applicant]  was  seen  in  our  GI  Clinic  for  evaluation  of  a  previous 
diagnosis  of  Crohn's  disease. 
  A  colonoscopy  with  ileoscopy  was 
performed  with  random  biopsies  taken  throughout  the  colon.    The 
examination  and  biopsies  were  all  normal  without  evidence  of  Crohn's.  
An  extensive  laboratory  evaluation  was  also  normal.    A  small  bowel 
follow  through  was  also  normal.    His  complete  absence  of  symptoms  is 
also not characteristic of Crohn's.  I can find no evidence at this time that 
he has Crohn's disease.  His initial symptoms may well have been due to a 
self-limited  infectious  colitis  that  resolved.    Unless  symptoms  recur,  I 
would  not  recommend  any  further  diagnostic  evaluation  and  feel  the 
patient can return to full, unrestricted duties.   

 

SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL DISABILIY EVALUATION SYSTEM (PDES) 

PROCEEDINGS 

 
 
On  November  21,  2001,  while  on  active  duty,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by 
gastroenterology  medical  personnel  and  diagnosed  as  having  Crohn's  disease,  an 
inflammatory  disease  of  the  gastrointestinal  tract.    The  medical  report  described  the 
applicant's  condition  as  mild  with  minimal  interference  of  his  daily  activities.    The 
report  stated  that  it  was  not  possible  to  predict  how  the  disease  would  affect  the 
applicant in the future, but it would be beneficial to the applicant if he were assigned to 
shore-based commands to be near specialized medical care should the need arise.  The 
report stated that the cause of Crohn's disease is unknown and that the clinical course is 
different  for  every  patient.    "Some  patients  have  very  mild  disease  while  others  have 
disease that is so severe that surgery is required.  Other patients experience alternating 
periods of remission and active disease."  
 
On July 10, 2002, a medical board1 (MB) was convened to evaluate the applicant's 
 
physical condition.  The MB diagnosed the applicant as suffering from "Inflammatory 
Bowel  (Crohn's)  Disease,  Inflammatory  Proctitis,  and  Intermittent  Anemia."    The  MB 
report  stated  that  the  applicant  was  well  until  approximately  January  2000  when  he 
began  to  complain  regularly  of  recurrent  bloating,  cramping  and  diarrhea.      The  MB 
stated  that  the  applicant's  symptoms  ranged  from  incapacitating  to  minimal  over  a 
period of one to two years, with the applicant reporting that he had three to eight stools 
per day.   
                                                 
1   The purpose of a Medical Board is to evaluate and report upon the present state of health of any ember 
who  may  be  referred  tot  he  medical  board  by  an  authorized  convening  authority  and  provide  a 
recommendation as to whether the member is medically fit for the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, 
or  rating.    See  Chapter  3.A.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1850.2C). 

 
 
The  MB  noted  that  the  x-ray  studies  were  normal,  but  the  diagnosis  was 
confirmed by UGI showing mild nodularity of the terminal ileum and ileocecal junction 
and  colonoscopic  biopsies  by  local  and  military  treatment  facility  gastroenterologists.  
The applicant was treated with medication over a one-year period with a moderate to 
good  response  (with  stools  less  than  three  per  day).    The  MB  offered  the  following 
prognosis: 
 

The  prognosis  for  this  patient  is  guarded  but  his  response  to  therapy  is 
encouraging.    It  is  unlikely  that  this  member  will  soon  be  fit  for 
worldwide  deployments  as  a  member  of  a  ship's  crew,  but  sea 
duty/training  close  to  a  tertiary  care  center  would  be  appropriate.    The 
patient may completely respond to therapy over the next one-two years, 
but will be at risk for symptom recurrence indefinitely and must remain 
near  (within  1-2  hr)  [of]  a  tertiary  care  MTF  [medical  treatment  facility] 
during this period.   
 
It  is  the  opinion  of  the  board  that  the  aforementioned  diagnoses  and 
present  objective  findings  are  correct  and  that  the  patient  has  recovered 
his ability to function as a BM1 petty officer.  The member does not have a 
physical  impairment  that  precludes  performing  the  duties  of  his  grade 
and rate.  
 
The  prognosis  for  this  patient  remains  guarded  while  he  resumes  full 
activity  afloat  and  remains  on  maintenance  medication.    The  patient 
should respond to therapy over the next months-years. 

 
 
The  applicant  was  notified  that  the  MB  had  recommended  a  finding  of  fit  for 
limited  duty  for  a  continuous  period  with  the  limitation  that  he  "must  remain  near 
(within 1-2hr) [of] a tertiary care MTF." 
 
 
On August 1, 2002, in separate letters the applicant requested to be retained on 
active duty and he rebutted the medical board.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated that 
he  had  five  years  and  six  months  of  service.    He  further  stated  the  following  with 
respect to the MB: 
 

The [MB] narrative states that I remain within 1-2 hours of a tertiary care 
medical treatment facility, but then goes on to say that I have recovered 
my ability to function as a BM1 Petty Officer.  It then goes on to say that I 
will resume full activity afloat.  This is contradicting because in order for 
me to stay within 1-2 hours of a medical treatment facility I cannot resume 
full  activity  afloat.    I  plan  to  retire  from  the  Coast  guard  and  want  to 
advance to the highest rank possible.  In order to do that and broaden my 

career I need sea time.  I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease over l year 
ago.    I  have  responded  well  to  the  medication.    I  ask  that  the 
recommendation  to  stay  within  1-2  hours  of  a  medical  treatment facility 
be  changed  to  8-10  hours  so  that  I  will  be  able  to  get  under  way  on  a 
cutter.   

 
 
In commenting on the applicant's rebuttal, the applicant's officer-in-charge noted 
that the applicant's performance had been superb since the Crohn's disease diagnosis.  
He  agreed  that  the  applicant  was  not  fit  for  worldwide  assignment  or  assignment  to 
larger  cutters,  but  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  assigned  to  moderate  sized 
cutters  because  they  operated  closer  to  shore.  He  also  recommended  that  the  MFT 
arrival time be increased to 8-10 hours rather than the 1-2 hours recommended by the 
MB.   
 
 
The  commanding  officer  (CO)  for  the  group  to  which  the  applicant's  unit 
belonged stated in a letter dated October 1, 2002, that the applicant was performing his 
duties at a high level with no loss of productivity.  He concurred with the findings of 
the  IMB  and  requested  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board2  (CPEB)  review  the 
applicant's case.   
 
 
The CPEB met on October 22, 2002, and determined that the applicant was unfit 
to perform "regular or customary assigned duties."  The CPEB recommended that the 
applicant  be  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  severance  pay,  due  to  a  10% 
disability rating for "Crohn's Disease Analogous[3 ] to Colitis, Ulcerative: Moderate."   
 
 
recommended disposition and waived his right to a formal hearing.   
 
 
On  November  20,  2002,  the  proceedings  were  reviewed  by  the  Chief  Counsel 
(now  known  as  the  JAG)  and  found  to  be  correct  and  supported  by  the  evidence  of 
record.   
 

On November 18, 2002, the applicant accepted the CPEB's tentative findings and 

                                                 
2   The Central Physical Evaluation Board is a permanently established administrative body convened to 
evaluated on a records basis the fitness for duty of active and reserve members and the fitness for duty of 
members on the temporary disability retired list.  See Chapter 4.A.1. of the Physical Disability Evaluation 
System Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C). 
 
3   Rating by analogy is the process in which a disability that is not listed on the Veterans Affairs Schedule 
for  Rating  Disabilities  (VASRD)  is  rated  using  a  disability  from  the  VASRD  with  similar  functional 
impairments.      See  Chapter  9.A.7.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1850.2C). 

 
On November 22, 2002, the Deputy Commander (for the Commandant) ordered 
the  applicant  to  be  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  severance  pay  due  to  a 
physical disability.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) in an advisory opinion dated April 29, 2004, 
stated that it had administratively corrected the applicant's DD Form 214, through the 
issuance of a DD Form 215, to show his reenlistment code as RE-3P (physical disability).  
The Judge Advocate General (known then as the Chief Counsel) recommended that the 
Board  administratively  close  the  applicant's  case  because  the  Coast  Guard  had 
administratively granted the relief requested by the applicant.   
 

APPLICANT RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  3,  2004,  the  Chair  sent  the  Coast  Guard's  advisory  opinion  to  the 
applicant  for  his  review  and  response.    On  June  18,  2004,  the  Board  received  the 
applicant's response to the advisory opinion.  He stated the following: 

 
I feel that the Coast Guard has misunderstood my request to change my 
reenlistment  code.    After  6  years  of  service  I  was  forced  to  leave  due  to 
Crohn's  Disease.    After  my  discharge,  the  VA  determined  that  I  did  not 
have this disease.  The Coast Guard misdiagnosed my case and my DD-
214 should reflect this.  I request that my RE code be changed to an RE-1 
and  that  the  reason  for  my  separation  be  that  my  time  in  service  was 
completed.   

 
  
On  July  12,  2004,  the  applicant  informed  the  Board  that  he  was  attempting  to 
obtain  a  waiver  for  enlistment  from  the  Navy  with  his  RE-3P  reenlistment  code.    He 
requested  that  his  application  be  placed  on  hold  until  the  outcome  of  his  waiver 
request.   
 
 
On October 29, 2004, the applicant advised the Board that the Navy had denied 
his  request  for  a  waiver  and  that  he  wanted  to  continue  with  the  processing  of  his 
request  to  have  his  RE-3P  reenlistment  code  changed  to  an  RE-1  (eligible  for 
reenlistment).   
 
 
On  November  4,  2004,  the  Board  requested  that  the  Coast  Guard  issue  a 
supplemental  advisory  opinion  on  the  applicant's  request  to  change  his  reenlistment 
code from RE-3P to RE-1. 
 

SUPPLEMENATAL VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  January  3,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  a  supplemental  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the 
applicant’s request to have the RE-3P reenlistment code changed to RE-1 and the reason 
for his discharge changed to expiration of enlistment. 
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that the  Coast  Guard  had  changed  the  applicant's  reenlistment 
code to RE-3P as he requested in his initial application.  With respect to the applicant's 
subsequent  request  to  have  the  RE-3P  changed  to  RE-1,  the  JAG  stated  that  the 
applicant was properly processed through the PDES and that he was afforded his full 
due  process  rights  before  his  separation  with  severance  pay.    He  further  stated  the 
following: 
 

The evidence submitted by Applicant consists of a single one-paragraph 
letter signed by a gastroenterologist employed by the VA.  In essence, that 
letter states that applicant currently shows no evidence of having Crohn's 
disease  and  that  Applicant's  complete  absence  of  symptoms  is  not 
characteristic of Crohn's disease.  The letter goes on to theorize about what 
might  have  been  happening  at  the  time  of  Applicant's  separation  and 
offers  an  opinion  that  Applicant  could  return  to  unrestricted  duty.  
Although this evidence should assist Applicant in convincing a recruiter 
that  the  medical  condition  flagged  by  his  current  RE-3  code  has  been 
resolved, it is simply not persuasive evidence that the Coast Guard erred 
in  separating  Applicant,  with  Applicant's  concurrence,  at the  time  it  did 
so.  There are alternate explanations regarding Applicant's current lack of 
symptoms, including an uncharacteristic case of Crohn's disease.  It is also 
beyond  debate  that  Applicant's  medical  condition  at  the  time  of  his 
separation rendered him unfit for continued service.   

 
 
The JAG argued that the applicant has failed to carry his burden of production 
and persuasion and should have his claim denied for lack of proof and merit.  The JAG 
further stated that the relief already granted by the Coast Guard affords the applicant 
the opportunity to demonstrate that his medical issues are sufficiently resolved to allow 
him to resume his service in the armed forces and is the only relief warranted in this 
case.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENATAL VIEWS OF THE         

COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  January  4,  2004,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  supplemental 
views  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond.    The  Board  did  not  receive  a 
response from the applicant to the supplemental views of the Coast Guard. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Disability Statutes 
 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to per-
form the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical dis-
ability incurred while entitled to basic pay” may be retired if the disability is (1) perma-
nent and stable, (2) not a result of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 
years of service, “at least 30 percent under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in 
use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of the determination.”  Title 10 
U.S.C.  § 1203  provides  that  such  a  member  whose  disability  is  rated  at  only  10  or  20 
percent  under  the  VASRD  shall  be  discharged  with  severance  pay.    Title  10  U.S.C. 
§ 1214  states  that  “[n]o  member  of  the  armed  forces  may  be  retired  or  separated  for 
physical disability without a full and fair hearing if he demands it.” 
 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C) 
 
 
Article 2.B.c.2. states that the sole standard in making determinations of physical 
disability as a basis for retirement or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties 
of  office,  grade,  rank  or  rating  because  of  disease  or  injury  incurred  or  aggravated 
through  military  service.    Each  case  is  to  be  considered  by  relating  the  nature  and 
degree of physical disability of the evaluee  concerned to the requirements and duties 
that a member may reasonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, rank 
or rating. 

Article 3.F.9.(13) of the Medical Manual lists ulcerative colitis as a disqualifying 

Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 
 
condition for retention.  
 
Separation Program Designator Handbook 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator Handbook authorizes the assignment of an 
RE-3P  reenlistment  code  with  the  JFL  separation  code  for  an  involuntary  discharge 
resulting from physical disability with entitlement to severance pay.   
 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

1.The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

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

 
2.  The applicant first asked the Board to upgrade his RE-4 reenlistment code to 
an  RE-3.    The  Coast  Guard,  in  the  advisory  opinion,  acknowledged  that  the  RE-4 
reenlistment code was erroneous and stated that it had administratively corrected the 
applicant's record to show RE-3P as the applicant's reenlistment code.  After receiving 
the  advisory  opinion  and  the  DD  Form  215  correcting  the  reenlistment  code,  the 
applicant  amended  his  application  to  request  an  upgrade  in  the  RE-3P  reenlistment 
code and a change in the reason for his discharge.  Therefore, the issue before the Board 
is  whether  the  applicant's  RE-3P  reenlistment  code  should  be  upgraded  to  RE-1  and 
whether  the  reason  for  his  discharge  should  be  changed  from  physical  disability  to 
expiration of enlistment.    

 
3.  This relief can be granted only if the applicant proves by a preponderance of 
the  evidence  that  he  did  not  suffer  from  a  physical  disability  at  the  time  of  his 
separation  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant  is 
insufficient to persuade the Board that the RE-3P reenlistment code and the discharge 
by  reason  of  physical  disability  are  in  error  or  unjust.    The  letter  from  the  DVA 
gastroenterologist is the only evidence offered by the applicant to prove his contention 
that he did not suffer with Crohn's disease at the time of his discharge. The DVA doctor 
offered his opinion that based upon his examination of the applicant and the negative 
colonoscopy  and  ileoscopy  test  results  he  could  find  no  evidence  that  the  applicant 
suffered  from  Crohn's  disease.    Although  he  suggested  another  reason  for  the 
applicant's  symptoms  while  on  active  duty,  he  never  expressly  stated  that  the  Coast 
Guard's diagnosis of Crohn's disease was wrong.  
 

4.    The  DVA  doctor's  letter  at  first  glance  appears  to  favor  the  applicant's 
contention,  but  upon  closer  review  the  Board  finds  it  to  be  consistent  with  the  2001 
medical report from the Coast Guard gastroenterologist and 2002 MB. Approximately 
two years earlier (2001), the Coast Guard gastroenterologist noted that the symptoms of 
Crohn's  disease  range  from  mild  to  severe  and  for  some  individuals  there  could  be 
alternating periods of remission and active disease.   He further noted that he could not 
predict how the disease would affect the applicant in the future.  Accordingly, the Coast 
Guard  physician  was  aware  of  the  possibility  that  the  applicant  could  have  periods 
when he would  be free of Crohn's disease symptoms, but still  recommended that the 
applicant  receive  only  shore  assignments  so  that  he  would  always  be  near  a  medical 
treatment facility should he have a recurrence of symptoms.  

 
5.  In addition, the 2002 MB acknowledged in its findings that the applicant had 
gotten  good  results  with  medication  therapy  and  stated  that  "[t]he  [applicant]  may 
completely  respond  to  therapy  over  the  next  one-two  years,  but  will  be  at  risk  for 
symptom  recurrence  indefinitely  and  must  remain  near  .  .  .  a  .  .  .  MTF  during  this 

period."  Coast  Guard  medical  personnel  considered  the  possibility  that  the  applicant 
could  experience  the  absence  of  symptoms  going  forward  but  noted  that  he  would 
always be subject to a recurrence of symptoms and therefore could only be assigned to 
commands within one to two hours of a medical treatment facility. The DVA doctor's 
letter  is  consistent  with  the  findings  and  prognosis  of  Coast  Guard  personnel  and  it 
establishes  only  that  in  2003,  the  applicant  was  free  of  Crohn's  disease  symptoms. 
Therefore,  the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  in  the  record  to  prove  that  the  Coast 
Guard committed an error by diagnosing the applicant with Crohn's disease. 

 
6.    Neither  does  the  Board  find  an  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the  PDES 
proceedings.    The  MB  determined  that  the  applicant  was  not  fit  for  worldwide 
deployments and placed him on continuous limited duty with the requirement that he 
be within one to two hours of a medical treatment facility.  The applicant's officer-in-
charge  agreed  that  the  applicant  was  not  fit  for  assignments  to  large  cutters  and  the 
applicant acknowledged in his rebuttal that in order to advance in rank he needed to be 
able to perform sea duty.   Therefore, the CPEB determination that the applicant was 
not fit to perform the duties of his office, grade, or rate was appropriate. The applicant 
accepted  the  CPEB  findings  and  waived  his  right  to  a  Formal  Disability  Evaluation 
Board, where he could have had a hearing, if he believed his diagnosis was erroneous.   

 
7.  Accordingly,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  establish  an  error  or  injustice  with 
respect to his RE-3P reenlistment code or the reason for his discharge.  The Coast Guard 
administratively corrected the applicant's record to grant the RE-3P reenlistment code 
after the applicant filed his request for a correction to his record.  He has not proven 
that he is entitled to anything more.    
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

The application of _______________  USCG, for correction of his military record 

ORDER 

 

 
 

is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Raghav Kotval 

 

 

 
 Kevin M. Walker