DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-165 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
  xxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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  August  11,  2004,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military and medical records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 21, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  make  him  eligible  to 
reenlist.  His discharge form DD 214 indicates that his reenlistment code is RE-4, which 
makes him ineligible to reenlist.  An RE-1 code would make him eligible to reenlist. 

 
The applicant alleged that at the time of his discharge in 1998, he was misdiag-
nosed with right optic nerve atrophy.  He alleged that in July 2002, he learned that he 
does not have that condition and that he actually has glaucoma, which “is treatable and 
not a viable reason for discharge.”  He stated that he wants to reenlist.  In support of his 
allegations, he provided the address of the regional medical center of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA). 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
the rating YN2 (yeoman, second class). 

On August 12, 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  He advanced to 

 
 
On  May  22,  1995,  the  applicant  sought  medical  treatment  for  blurred  distance 
vision and photophobia.  Upon examination, the doctor determined that he had bilat-
eral  asymmetrical  cupping  of  the  optic  discs  and  that  his  intraocular  pressures  were 
abnormal.  Visual field testing on June 29, 1995, indicated that he had highly contracted 
visual fields in both eyes.  At a follow-up examination on July 12, 1995, the applicant’s 
visual fields had improved.  However, the doctor noted that because of the atrophy, an 
Initial Medical Board (IMB) should be convened even though the applicant was fit for 
duty. 
 
 
On January 6, 1996, the applicant was evaluated by an IMB, which found that his 
diagnosis  was  “generalized  right  optic  nerve  atrophy”  that  did  not  exist  prior  to  his 
enlistment.  The IMB found that his condition did not interfere with his duties as a yeo-
man and that he was fit for full duty.  On January 9, 1996, the applicant acknowledged 
the findings of the IMB and indicated that he did not wish to rebut them.  On March 26, 
1996, the applicant’s commanding officer forwarded the report of the IMB to the Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  He stated that he agreed with the report because 
the applicant’s condition did not interfere with his performance of duties. 
 
 
On April 24, 1996, the CPEB found that the applicant was fit for full duty.  On 
May 21, 1996, he was counseled about the finding by a law specialist.  On June 5, 1996, 
CGPC informed the applicant’s command that the findings of the CPEB convened on 
April  24,  1996,  had  been  approved  and  that,  therefore,  the  applicant  would  not  be 
retired or separated because of his physical disability. 
 
 
either right optic nerve atrophy or glaucoma and should be evaluated by a specialist. 
 
 
On  November  13,  1997,  a  Disposition  Medical  Board  (DMB)  convened  to  re-
evaluate the applicant’s condition.  The Board noted that although his diagnoses were 
right  optic  nerve  atrophy,  right  visual  field  defect,  and  asymmetrical  disk  cupping,  a 
glaucoma  specialist  “is  unsure  of  whether  the  patient  suffers  from  early  glaucoma 
versus  idiopathic  optic  nerve  atrophy.”   The  DMB  determined  that  the  applicant  was 
not fit for world-wide duty and referred his case to the CPEB. 
 
 
On December 19, 1997, after consulting with counsel about the DMB’s findings, 
the applicant signed an acknowledgement indicating that he would submit a rebuttal.  
No  copy  of  the  rebuttal  appears  in  the  record.    On  March  16,  1998,  the  applicant’s 
commanding  officer  endorsed  the  rebuttal  to  the  IMB.    He  stated  that  the  applicant 
“continues  to  deal  with  the  challenges  associated  with  the  symptoms  of  his  medical 
condition”  and  that  because  of  “both  performance  considerations  and  his  developing 
medical  situation,  [he  had]  been  assigned  to  various  responsibilities  …  over  the  past 

On  February  12,  1997,  an  ophthalmologist  noted  that  the  applicant  might  have 

two  years.    During  this  period,  his  performance  of  duty  has  been  average  to  above 
average, and he has capably demonstrated cooperation, flexibility, and resilience.”   
 
On  April  24,  1998,  another  CPEB  was  convened  to  evaluate  the  applicant.    It 
 
found that he was unfit for duty because of his optic nerve atrophy and recommended 
that he be discharged with a zero-percent disability rating and severance pay.  On May 
13,  1998,  the  applicant  was  counseled  about  the  finding  by  an  attorney.    On  May  17, 
1998, the applicant accepted the CPEB’s findings and recommendation and waived his 
right to a hearing before a Formal Physical Evaluation Board.  On May 26, 1998, CGPC 
approved the CPEB’s findings and recommendation and ordered that the applicant be 
separated with severance pay. 
 
 
On  July  16,  1998,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  with  severance  pay 
due to a physical disability with an RE-4 reenlistment code (ineligible to reenlist) and a 
JFL separation code. 
 
 
On August 20, 1998, the applicant applied to the DVA for medical benefits.  On 
June 30, 1999, a DVA doctor noted he did “not feel that the patient’s history, findings, or 
optic disk appearance is indicative of a glaucomatous condition.”  On April 30, 2001, the 
applicant  received  zero-percent  disability  ratings  for  right  optic  atrophy  and  several 
other conditions and a thirty-percent rating for migraine headaches, effective from the 
date  of  his  discharge.    He  later  received  a  ten-percent  disability  rating  for  a  severe 
sprain of his right ankle, for a combined rating of forty percent. 
 
 
On  April  3,  2003,  a  DVA  doctor  who  was  treating  the  applicant  for  migraines 
noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  prescribed  eye  drops  three  times  a  day  to  treat 
“possible  low  tension  glaucoma.”    On  March  30,  2004,  the  DVA  sent  the  applicant  a 
letter noting that it required more information to process his claim for migraine head-
aches and glaucoma. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  January  3,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  excuse  the 
untimeliness of the application and grant the applicant partial relief by upgrading his 
reenlistment code to RE-3P.   

 
The JAG based his recommendation on a memorandum on the case prepared by 
CGPC.    CGPC  stated  that  the  medical  records  received  from  the  DVA  provided  “no 
clear diagnosis of glaucoma vice optic nerve atrophy,” although there was clearly “the 
possibility  that  the  diagnosis  [of  optic  nerve  atrophy]  at  the  time  of  the  Applicant’s 
discharge may have been a mistake in that the Applicant has been on continuous medi-
cation for glaucoma.”  CGPC pointed out, however, that the applicant had been diag-

nosed  with  “intractable  migraines”  and  an  ankle  condition,  which  would  render  him 
ineligible for enlistment. 

 
In  light  of  the  applicant’s  current  diagnoses,  CGPC  stated,  he  is  ineligible  for 
reenlistment  and  “cannot  justifiably  be  assigned  a  reenlistment  code  of  RE-1.”    How-
ever,  because  the  applicant’s  conditions  might  be  treatable,  CGPC  recommended  that 
his  RE  code  be  upgraded  to  RE-3P,  which  “does  not  automatically  bar  or  allow  his 
accession, but will require him to fully document and demonstrate to service recruiting 
authorities that he has overcome and resolved any disabilities.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On January 4, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The mailing was returned 
to  the  BCMR  by  the  Post  Office  with  the  notation  “Return  to  Sender/Forwarding 
Expire” on the envelope.   
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Article 3.F. of the Medical Manual provides that members  with  medical  condi-
tions that “are normally disqualifying” for retention in the Service shall be referred to 
an  IMB  by  their  commands  for  processing  under  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation 
System.  Under Article 3.F.5.a., optic nerve atrophy and glaucoma that is “resistant to 
treatment,  or  affecting  visual  fields,  or  if  side  effects  of  required  medications  are 
functionally incapacitating” are normally disqualifying conditions.  

 
According  to  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  a  member 
who is discharged with a JFL separation code due to a physical disability should receive 
an RE-3P reenlistment code.  The RE-4 code is not authorized.  An RE-3P code means 
that the veteran is eligible to reenlist except for a disqualifying condition (the disability).  
To reenlist the veteran, a recruiter must seek a waiver. 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

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

1. 
§ 1552.   
 
2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The applicant knew 

or should have known of his RE-4 reenlistment code upon his discharge in 1998.  How-
ever, he apparently believed the diagnosis of the Coast Guard’s doctors until July 2002, 
when  he  allegedly  was  diagnosed  with  and  began  to  be  treated  for  low  tension 
glaucoma.  Moreover, the Board notes that if the Discharge Review Board (DRB) did not 
categorically  reject  applications  concerning  medical  matters,  even  when  no  monetary 
claim has been made, the applicant would have been able to seek relief from the DRB 
within fifteen years of his discharge, and his application to the BCMR would have been 
timely pursuant to Ortiz v. Sec’y of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994).  Therefore, 
and in light of the apparent error in the applicant’s record and the reason for his delay, 
the  Board  finds  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations.  
Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.D.C. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992).  
 

3. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  allow  him  to 
reenlist.    His  RE-4  reenlistment  code  makes  him  ineligible  to  reenlist.    An  RE-1  code 
would allow him to reenlist without any consideration of his physical condition.   

 
4. 

Under  the  SPD  Handbook,  the  only  reenlistment  code  authorized  for 
members such as the applicant who are discharged due to a physical disability is an RE-
3P.  Therefore, the RE-4 reenlistment code on the applicant’s DD 214 is erroneous.  The 
Coast Guard has recommended that the Board upgrade the applicant’s code to RE-3P. 

 
5. 

The Board agrees with the Coast Guard that the applicant has submitted 
insufficient  evidence  to  justify  upgrading  his  reenlistment  code  to  RE-1.    He  has  not 
proved  that  the  optical/visual  problem  that  caused  his  discharge  has  been  entirely 
resolved by treatment.  In addition, his medical records indicate that he has developed 
medical problems since his discharge that might disqualify him for reenlistment.  How-
ever, as his RE-4 code is clearly erroneous under the provisions of the SPD Handbook, 
his  reenlistment  code  should  be  upgraded  to  RE-3P.    With  an  RE-3P,  he  will  have  a 
chance of proving to a recruiter that he is sufficiently fit for duty to receive a waiver so 
that he can reenlist. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, partial relief should be granted. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

ORDER 

 

The Coast Guard shall correct his reenlistment code to RE-3P and shall issue him 

 
 

 
 

his military record is granted in part as follows: 
 
 
a new DD 214 with the RE-3P code in block 27. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

  

        

 
 
 Nancy L. Friedman  

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn