DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-124 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 dock-
eted  on  May  25,  2004,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  24,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  increasing  his  Coast 
Guard disability rating from 50% to 90%.  In subsequent correspondence, he amended 
his application to request a 100% disability rating. 
 

 ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant alleged that he should have been received a disability rating higher 
than  50%  from  the  Coast  Guard  in  2001  because  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs 
(DVA) has deemed all of his disabilities to be service connected and has awarded him a 
100% service connected disability rating.  He further stated that he "seeks an increase of 
the  50%  rating  from  the  USCG  Medical  Board  to  100%  under  the  criteria  established 
under VA Code 8100 [migraines]." 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  had  the  following  medical  conditions  prior  to  his 
retirement from the Coast Guard by reason of physical disability and that the DVA has 

deemed  each  condition  to  be  service  connected.    (The  parenthetical  contains  the 
percentage of disability awarded by the DVA for that condition.) 

 
[Hypertension]  (10%) 
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (40%) 
Obstructive Sleep Apnea  (50%) 
Diabetes Mellitus, with Cataract  (20%) 
Left Upper Extremity, Peripheral Neuropathy associated with Diabetes Mellitus        
with Cataract (20%) 
Right  Upper  Extremity,  Peripheral  Neuropathy  associated  with  Diabetes 
Mellitus        with Cataract (20%) 
Neurogenic Bladder and Enlarged Prostate (40%) 
Bowel Function, Autonomic Neuropathy (10%) 
Left lower Extremity, Peripheral Neuropathy associated with  Diabetes Mellitus        
with Cataract (10%) 
Right lower Extremity, Peripheral Neuropathy associated with Diabetes Mellitus        
with Cataract (10%) 
Pes Planus  (0%) 
Sinusitis  (0%) 
Tension Headaches  (30%) 
Right Lower Extremity, Peripheral Vascular Disease  (0%) 
Left Lower Extremity, Peripheral Vascular Disease  (0%) 
Left Carpal Tunnel Syndrome  (10%) 

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  is  currently  taking  thirteen  different  medications, 
including  insulin  and  that  he  requires  various  medical  supplies  such  as  syringes, 
incontinence briefs, and diabetic shoes.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The  applicant,  who  had  prior  military  service,  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on 
March 29, 1993.  He was retired by reason of physical disability on May 14, 2001, with a 
50% disability rating due to Diabetes Mellitus, rated as 40% disabling, Varicose Veins in 
the right leg with intermittent edema rated as 10% disabling, and Varicose Veins in the 
left leg with intermittent edema rated as 10% disabling.  At the time of his retirement, 
he had approximately eleven years and nine months of active duty. 
 
The  applicant  was  a  chief  food  service  specialist  who  underwent  a  medical 
 
examination for the purpose of an initial medical board (IMB)1 on October 30, 2000.  The 

                                                 
1    An  IMB  is  a  written  report  of  a  medical  board  convened  by  appropriate  authority  to  evaluate  a 
member's fitness for duty and to make recommendations consistent with the findings.  Article 2.A.24 of 
the PDES Manual.   

IMB determined that the applicant was not fit for duty and diagnosed him as suffering 
from the following: 
 

  Peripheral  Autonomic  Diabetic-Neuropathy  of  the  lower  extremities 

"1.  Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 requiring Insulin 
"2. 
moderate to severe 
"3.    Incontinence  probably  secondary  to  Autonimic  Neuropathy  of  the  bladder 
with decreased bladder compliance 
"4.  Hypertension (fair control) 
"5.  Chronic elevation of Cathecolamines etiology unknown 
"6.  Hyperlipidemia 
"7.  Gastroesophageal Reflux with Esophagitis and Hiatal Hernia" 

 
The IMB further reported the following: 
 

According  to  a  review  of  the  health  record,  systems,  social,  and  family 
histories the evaluee was seen at the clinic in March 2000 and diagnosed 
with  Diabetes  Mellitus.    .  .  .      [The  applicant]  was  sent  to  [an]  Internal 
Medicine specialist since he also had hypertension with fair control (since 
1994) and hyperlipidemia (since 1996).  He was seen by the Internist from 
March  to  June  2000  and  was  treated  with  oral  hypoglycemia  agents.  
While  [he]  was  receiving  treatment  with  the  Internist,  he  complained  of 
leg pain and his blood sugar, blood pressure and lipids were not very well 
controlled . . . After he was seen by Bethesda Endocrinology on 24Jul00, 
[he] was started on Insulin injections . . . and continued with the rest of his 
medications . . .   [The applicant] was evaluated at a diabetics clinic on 24 
Aug00.  His exam was essentially [within normal limits] including blood 
pressure . . .  [The applicant] has continued with lower extremity pain and 
burning  sensation  despite  no  apparent  sensory  deficits. 
  The 
Endocrinologist  believes  this  is  an  autonomic  peripheral  neuropathy 
related to his diabetes.  [The applicant] has been seen by a Cardiologist for 
typical  chest  pain.    He  had  Nuclear  Stress  Testing  which  showed  no 
ischemia  or  infraction  but  his  blood  pressure  response  was  elevated, 
probably  poor  control  versus  deconditioning. 
  The  Cardiologist's 
impression  was  that  this  pain  was  more  gastrointestinal  in  nature  since 
the  patient  had  improvement  with  Prevacid.    [The  applicant]  was  later 
evaluated  by  a  gastroenterologist  and  an  EGD  was  done  which  showed 
esophagitis  with  gatroesophageal  reflux  and  a  hiatal  hernia.    [The 
applicant] was also seen by the urologist for incontinence.  A cystoscopy 
showed mild prostatic obstruction and the cystourethrogram (urodynamic 
testing)  showed  diminished  capacity  for 
increased  bladder  filling 
sensation.  The urologist impression is decreased bladder compliance . . .  
[The  applicant  was  seen  by  the  ophthalmologist  [who]  found  a  small 

cataract  on  the  left  eye,  but  no  retinopathy.    The  physical  exam  was 
[within  normal  limits]  except  for  a  body  habitus  consistent  with 
generalized obesity, mild varicose veins of the lower extremities, left eye 
cataract, mild enlarged prostate and blood pressure ranging from 142/90 
to 128/96. 

 

The  IMB  noted  in  an  addendum  that  the  applicant  had  been  diagnosed  with 
sleep apnea.  (Subsequently, the director for a sleep disorders center stated that a Nasal 
CPAP "appears to be an effective mode of therapy for [the applicant]").  It also stated 
that a neurologic evaluation of the lower extremity pain and an audiologic appointment 
were pending.  The IMB referred the applicant's case to the Central Physical Evaluation 
Board (CPEB)2 for further determination.  The applicant did not submit a rebuttal to the 
IMB.   

 
On December 22, 2000, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) commented on 
the IMB and agreed that the applicant was not fit for full duty.   He stated that he had 
been informed that neither continued impatient nor outpatient treatment would rectify 
the  applicant's  condition  to  return  him  to  full  duty  status  and  allow  availability  for 
worldwide assignment.  The CO further stated, "[the applicant] is one of my top Chief 
Petty  Officers.    His  dedication  and  faithful  years  of  service  entitle  him  to  favorable 
consideration  to  receive  the  maximum  allowable  percentage  of  disability  permitted 
under law." 

 
The  CPEB  met  on  January  23,  2001,  to  consider  the  applicant's  case.    It 
determined  that  the  applicant  was  not  fit  for  duty  due  to  Diabetes  Mellitus  that 
required insulin, a restrictive diet, and regulated activity.3  The CPEB gave the applicant 
a  40%  disability  rating  for  this  condition  under  code  7913  (Diabetes  Mellitus)  of  the 
Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities4 (VASRD).   

 

                                                 
2   The CPEB is a permanently established administrative body convened to evaluate, on a record basis, 
whether active duty, reservists, or temporarily disabled retired members are fit for duty, and if they are 
not, to determine and rate their disabilities.  Article 4.A.1. of the PDES Manual.   
 
3   According to Article 9.B.48 of the PDES Manual, "under Norman circumstances, members whose 
Diabetes Mellitus requires insulin for control will be found unfit for continued duty and not retained." 
 
4 The PDES manual requires the CPEB, FPEB and PRC to use the VASRD in determining the percentage 
of disability at the time of evaluation.   38 CFR 4.1 states that the rating schedule is primarily guide in the 
evaluation  of  disability  resulting  from  all  types  of  diseases  and  injuries  encountered  as  a  result  of  or 
incident to military service.  The percentage rating represent as far as can practicably be determined the 
average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries. 
   

On January 25, 2001, with the advice of counsel, the applicant rejected the CPEB 
recommendation  and  demanded  a  hearing  before  the  Formal  Physical  Evaluation 
Board5 (FPEB).  

 
On February 27, 2001, the applicant's CO sent a letter of support to the FPEB.  He 
stated that the applicant has been assigned to the dining facility as food service officer, 
with responsibility for managing one of the largest facilities in the Coast Guard.  The 
CO  described  the  applicant  as  an  outstanding  performer,  who  "even  with  his  present 
medical  situation  while  suffering  constant  pain  from  several  chronic  debilitating 
injuries, . . . exceeds all expectations and displays a level of dedication and commitment 
that is truly inspirational." 

 
The CO further stated that the applicant's supervisor had noticed a decline in the 
applicant's ability to sit for long periods of time, walk any significant distance or stand 
for  extended  periods  of  time.    He  attested  to  the  fact  that  the  applicant's  diabetic 
neuropathy  appears  to  cause  the  applicant  severe  pain  and  discomfort  on  a  regular 
basis. 

 
On March 2, 2001, the FPEB met and considered the applicant's case.  It agreed 
with the CPEB that the applicant was 40% disabled because of Diabetes Mellitus, but it 
also  granted  the  applicant  a  10%  disability  rating  for  varicose  veins  with  intermittent 
edema of the right leg, and a 10% disability rating for varicose veins with intermittent 
edema  of  the  left  leg  under  VASRD  code  7120  (Varicose  Veins).    Taking  the  bilateral 
factor6 into consideration, the FPEB gave the applicant a combined disability rating of 
52% rounded down to 50%.   

 
On  March  2,  2001,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  recommended 
findings of the FPEB and indicated his intention to submit a rebuttal and not to waive 
the 15 working day waiting period.   

 
On March 29, 2001, the recorder for the FPEB noted that the "the period during 

which rebuttal may be filed has elapsed and no rebuttal has been received."   

 
On April 10, 2001, the Chief Counsel (now the Judge Advocate General (JAG)) 
approved the PDES proceedings, and on April 16, 2001, the Chief of the Administrative 

                                                 
5   The FPEB is a fact-finding body that holds an administrative hearing to evaluate a member's fitness for 
duty and to make recommendations consistent with the findings.  Article 5.A.1. of the PDES Manual.  
 
6  Article  9.A.12.  of  the  PDES  Manual  explains  that  the  bilateral  factor  is  used  when  a  partial  disability 
results from injury or disease of both arms, or both legs, or of paired skeletal muscles.  In this regard, the 
rating for the disabilities of the right and left sides will be combined as usual, and 10 percent of this value 
will  be  added  (not  combined)  before  proceeding  with  further  combinations,  converting  to  degree  of 
disability.   

Division  approved  the  PDES  proceedings  and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  retired 
from the Coast Guard due to a physical disability effective May 15, 2001.   
 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (DVA) 

 

In March 2002, the applicant received a combined 90% disability rating from the 
DVA for the conditions described by the applicant under the allegations portion of this 
decision, except for a 0% disability rating for tension headaches and no rating at all for 
carpal  tunnel  syndrome.    Subsequently,  the  applicant  asked  the  DVA  for  increased 
compensation.    On  December  4,  2003,  the  DAV  increased  the  applicant's  disability 
rating  to  100%  because  it  granted  him  a  30%  disability  rating  for  tension  headaches 
(originally  rated  at  0%  disabling)  and  a  10%  disability  rating  for  carpal  tunnel 
syndrome.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 16, 2004, the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of 
the JAG.  He recommended that the applicant's request for relief be denied because the 
applicant had not shown that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice.  
 
  
The  JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  failed  to  show  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by rating his disabilities 
as 50% disabling. 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).   He stated that the DVA 
100%  disability  rating  over  a  year  after  the  applicant's  retirement  is  not  persuasive 
evidence of error by the Coast Guard in light of the different standard employed by the 
DVA.   
  
 
The JAG argued that the DVA findings regarding the applicant’s disabilities have 
no bearing or legal effect on the Coast Guard’s medical findings.  In this regard, the JAG 
stated that the DVA determines to what extent a veteran’s civilian earning capacity has 
been  reduced  as  a  result  of  physical  disabilities.    In  contrast,  the  Coast  Guard 
determines if a member is unfit to perform his military duties and then rates the extent 
the unfitting medical condition prevents the member from performing his duties.  He 
further stated as follows: 
 

The  procedures  and  presumptions  applicable  to  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  not  limited  to  the  time  of 
Applicant’s  discharge.    If  a  service-connected  condition  later  becomes 
disabling, the DVA may award compensation on that basis.   The DVA's 

finding that the Applicant was 100% disabled is not relevant to the Coast 
Guard's finding that he was 50% disabled based solely on the conditions 
that rendered him unfit for continued service at the time of his retirement. 
The  sole  standard  for  a  disability  determination  in  the  Coast  Guard  is 
unfitness to perform duty    . . . In any event any long-term diminution in 
the  Applicant's  earning  capacity  attributable  to  his  military  service  is 
properly a matter of the DVA, not the Coast Guard or the BCMR.   

 
 
Last, the JAG stated that the applicant was afforded all of his due process rights 
with  respect  to  the  processing  of  his  case  through  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation 
System  (PDES).    He  noted  that  the  applicant,  with  the  advice  of  counsel,  waived  his 
opportunity to challenge the Coast Guard's rating of his disability before the Physical 
Review Council (PRC).7   
 
 
The  JAG  attached  comments  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command  (CGPC)  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion.    CGPC  stated  that  his 
review  of  the  evidence  in  the  case  did  not  reveal  an  error  or  injustice  by  the  Coast 
Guard.    He  stated  that  the  medical  record  indicated  that  the  FPEB's  findings  were 
reasonable.  He further stated that the applicant was afforded his full due process rights 
within the PDES process.   
 
 
CGPC  also  stated  that  it  is  possible  that  the  applicant's  condition  changed  or 
worsened  after  his  separation,  but  regardless  of  this  possibility,  the  Military  Services 
and the DVA's disability evaluation system are different and serve different purposes.  
He stated that the military services first determine unfitness for duty and then rate only 
the extent that the unfitting medical condition or conditions prevent the member from 
performing  their  duties,  but  DVA  ratings  are  based  on  an  evaluation  of  the  whole 
person,  including  the  evaluation  of  the  evaluee's  temporary  employability  status  and 
earning capacity.  He asserted that the BCMR should evaluate the DVA rating decision 
in  light  of  the  understanding  that  DVA  ratings  are  not  determinative  of  the  issues 
involved in military disability rating determinations.   
 
 
The advisory opinion also included a statement from a chief warrant officer - W2 
(CWO2) who is the administrative officer for the Physical Disability Evaluation Branch.  
He stated the following: 
 

[The  applicant]  was  rated  50%  [disabled]  for  sleep  apnea.    His  sleep 
studies  show  that  he  had  a  mild  sleep  apnea  and  his  March  9,  2001, 
follow-up  .  .  .  said  that  his  nasal  CPAP  worked  incredibly  well  and 

                                                 
7  Article 1.C.4. of the PDES Manual states that the PRC reviews CPEBs and  FPEBs in which the evaluees 
rebut the findings or recommended disposition.    

controlled his sleep apnea.  Hence, according to the Medical Manual 3F he 
is fit to be retained in [Coast Guard]. 
 
In  regard  to  his  Diabetes  Mellitus  he  is  a  type  II  but  needed  insulin  to 
better control his blood sugar.  His diabetes is complicated with peripheral 
Autonomic Neuropathy which affected his lower extremities and bladder.  
Better control of his blood sugar, has improve his bladder problem.  The 
bilateral lower extremities neuropathy was noted as an impairment at the 
time when he was separated, but the Board considered his Varicose Veins 
to be more disabling hence they rated Varicose Veins instead (cook who 
stands on feet for prolong period of time).   
 
The remainder of the diagnoses  . . .  met retention standard 3F of Medical 
Manual.  
 

 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  30,  2004,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  was  sent  to  the 

 
 
applicant for a response.   The BCMR did not receive a response. 
 

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  2.C.2.i  states  in  pertinent  part  that  "a  member  may  have  physical 
 
impairment  ratable  in  accordance  with  the  VSARD,  such  impairments  do  not 
necessarily render him or her unfit for military duty." 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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 

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely.  
 
 
2.  The applicant mistakenly believed that a DVA determined service connected 
disability required the Coast Guard to find such service connected disability unfitting 
for  continued  military  service.    According  to  Article  2.A.47.  of  the  PDES  Manual, 
service-connected means that a disability was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty 
in the military.  However, Article 2.A.50. defines unfit for continued duty as the status 
of  a  member  who  is  unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating 
because of a physical disability.  Article 2.C.2.f.i. makes it clear that a member may have 
physical  impairments  ratable  in  accordance  with  the  VASRD,  but  such  impairments 
may  not  necessarily  render  the  member  unfit  for  military  duty.    Taking  into 
consideration the three provisions just discussed, it is the applicant's burden to prove 
that conditions other than those identified as disabling by the FPEB caused him to be 
unfit  for  military  duty,  i.e.  unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  grade,  rank,  or 
rating.      
 
 
3.  The applicant has not pointed to any specific medical evidence in his record or 
to any other evidence that proves that any of his other conditions caused him to be unfit 
for duty.  While the applicant suffered from numerous conditions, it appears that only 
the Diabetes Mellitus requiring insulin and the lower extremity pain and edema rated 
by the Coast Guard under VASRD code 7120 (Varicose Veins) caused the applicant to 
be  unfit  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office  and  rate.    Even  if  the  applicant's  lower 
extremity  conditions  should  have  been  rated  as  Neuropathy  resulting  from  Diabetes 
Mellitus (as done by the DVA) rather than Varicose Veins, there is no evidence that the 
disability  rating  for  Neuropathy  in  each  leg  would  have  been  more  than  the  10% 
awarded by the Coast Guard for Varicose Veins.   
 

4.    Article  2.C.2.a.  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  one's  rank  or  rating.    In  this  regard,  the  CO's  statement  is  critical  in 

determining how the applicant's conditions affected his ability to do his job.  The CO's 
statement  that  the  applicant  was  unable  to  sit  for  long  periods  of  time,  walk  any 
significant distance or stand for extended time supports the findings by the FPEB that 
the applicant's Diabetes Mellitus and Varicose Veins (leg pain and edema) caused the 
applicant to be unable to adequately perform his duties.  There is no indication in the 
record that any of the applicant's other conditions caused him to be unable to perform 
the duties of his rate and rank, although each may be service connected for the purposes 
of the DVA. 
 

5.  In addition, the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove that the 
Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  only  rating  his  disability  as  50% 
disabling.    The  only  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant  to  prove  error  by  the  Coast 
Guard  is  the  higher  DVA  rating.    However,  a  higher  DVA  rating  does  not  establish 
error  by  the  Coast  Guard.    This  Board  has  consistently  held  that  a  higher  disability 
rating from the DVA does not alone establish that the Coast Guard committed an error 
or injustice by assigning a lower disability rating.  In Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 
754  (1983),  the  Court  of  Federal  Claims  stated  "[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."   

 
6.  Last, the applicant suggests that he should have a higher disability rating from 
the Coast Guard because in December 2003 the DVA rated his tension headaches as 30% 
disabling,  and  his  carpal  tunnel  syndrome  as  10%  disabling.    However,  the  applicant 
points  to  no  evidence  in  the  record,  and  the  Board  finds  none,  that  the  tension 
headaches or the carpal tunnel syndrome caused the applicant to be unable to perform 
the duties of his rate at the time of his 2001 retirement by reason of physical disability.    
As stated above, a member may have impairments that do not render the member unfit 
for military duty. The applicant failed to point to the evidence establishing the alleged 
error,  even  after  receiving  the  advisory  opinion.    Insufficient  evidence  exists  in  the 
record to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error by assigning the applicant a 
50% disability rating.  
 

7.  The applicant received all of the due process to which he was entitled under 
the PDES. The Board notes that the applicant failed to submit a rebuttal objecting to the 
FPEB  findings  and  recommendations,  after  indicating  that  he  would  do  so.    An 
objection  or  rebuttal  by  the  applicant  would  have  led  to  a  review  by  the  Physical 
Review Counsel (PRC) because Article 6.B.1. of the PDES Manual states that the PRC 

reviews  every  FPEB  in  which  the  evaluee  rebuts  the  findings  and  recommended 
disposition. 

 
8.    In  passing,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  is  receiving  100%  disability 
compensation from the DVA and if he were found to be 100% disabled from the Coast 
Guard, he would be required to choose between compensation from the DVA or from 
the  Coast  Guard.    He  could  not  receive  both.    DVA  compensation  is  tax-free  where 
disability retirement from the Coast Guard is not.   In light of this finding, even if the 
Board were incorrect in its findings in this case, the applicant would not be harmed.       
 

9.   Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove an error or injustice in this case 

and his request for relief should be denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

ORDER  

 

The application of _________________ USCG (Ret.), for correction of his military 

 
 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Harold C. Davis, MD 

 

 

 

 
 
             Audrey Roh  

 

 

 

 
 
             Marc J. Weinberger