DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-025 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Xxx xx xxxx,  SN/E-3 (former) 
   

 
Author: Hale, D. 
 

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 November 18, 2004, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated August 11, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman (SN; pay grade E-3) who served four years in the 
Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that on January 1, 
1976,  he  received  a  disability  discharge  based  upon  a  diagnosis  of  narcolepsy.1    The 
applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  been  granted  a  disability  discharge  because  he 
suffered  from  narcolepsy  and  that  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  properly  diagnose  his 
illness.  Instead, he was honorably discharged at the expiration of his enlistment with 
no disability benefits. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a letter from Mr. P, one of 
his former commanding officers.  Mr. P stated that he was the applicant’s commanding 
officer from April 1972 through December 1974, and that he can “state positively that 
[the applicant] had Narcolepsy while he was on active duty with the Coast Guard.”  Mr. 
                                                 
1  Narcolepsy  is  “recurrent,  uncontrollable,  brief  episodes  of  sleep.”    DORLAND’S  ILLUSTRATED  MEDICAL 
DICTIONARY, 29TH ED. (2000), p. 1178. 
 

P further alleged that the applicant routinely fell asleep at the “drop of a dime” and that 
he was written up for falling asleep on watch.  Mr. P also alleged that if the applicant 
had  been  diagnosed  with  narcolepsy,  then he  would  have  been  medically  discharged 
from the Coast Guard. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On  January  3,  1972,  the  applicant  underwent  a  physical  examination  for  the 
 
purpose  of  enlistment  into  the  Coast  Guard.    At  the  time  of  the  examination  he 
indicated  that  he  was  in  good  health  and  did  not  have  any  preexisting  medical 
conditions.  The examining physician found the applicant to be fit for recruit training.  
On January 14, 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years.  
 

On May 3, 1972, the applicant made his first of many visits to the Army Hospital 
at  Fort  Leavenworth,  Kansas,  with  complaints  of  falling  asleep  and  “pains  in  head.”  
During  the  first  visit,  the  applicant  stated  that  his  sleeping  problem  had  existed  for 
about one year.  He told his doctors that his sleeping problems had begun “about a year 
ago” which indicates that the problem existed prior to his enlistment.  He returned to 
the hospital several times in the following weeks with the same complaints, and during 
another  visit  to  the  hospital  in  early  May,  his  record  indicates  that  narcolepsy  was  a 
suspected  cause  of  his  sleepiness.    Following  more  episodes  of  falling  asleep  and 
general  lethargy,  the  applicant  once  again  reported  to  the  clinic  on  May  18,  1972.  
During the examination, the healthcare provider noted in the applicant’s record that the 
applicant was “still falling asleep in chair” and indicated that he suspected narcolepsy 
as  the  cause  of  the  applicant’s  sleeping  problem  and  lethargy.   Shortly  thereafter, the 
applicant was referred for a neurology consult and an EEG.2  The applicant was seen by 
a  neurologist  and  had  an  EEG  on  June  26,  1972.    The  consult  failed  to  reveal  any 
problems and the EEG was normal. 
 
 
On  August  22,  1975,  the  applicant  underwent  a  physical  examination  in 
anticipation of his release from active duty (RELAD).  On the Report of Medical History 
form he completed prior to the physical, he placed a checkmark in the block that asked 
if he had ever had “frequent trouble sleeping.”  The examining physician noted that the 
applicant met the physical standards for RELAD and had no disqualifying defects. 
 
 

On September 5, 1975, a reenlistment interview was conducted and the applicant 
stated that he did not want to remain in the Coast Guard.  He was informed that he was 
not  recommended  for  reenlistment  due  to  his  “inability  to  advance  to  a  petty  officer 
rating.”  On September 9, 1975, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of 
the reenlistment recommendation and that he had 15 days to appeal the action.  There is 
nothing in the record to indicate that he appealed the action. 

  

                                                 
2  An  EEG  (electroencephalogram)  is  “a  recording  of  the  potentials  of  the  skull  generated  by  currents 
emanating spontaneously from nerve cells in the brain.”  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 
29TH ED. (2000), p. 574. 
 
 

On  January  13,  1976,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard.  His discharge form (DD 214) indicates that he was discharged at the end of his 
enlistment with a separation code of JBK (completion of active required service) and a 
reenlistment code of RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist).  The record also indicates he was not 
recommended for reenlistment because of his inability to be advanced to a petty officer 
rating and that he failed to complete certain service schools. 

 
In 1985, the applicant applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for 
disability benefits, claiming that he had suffered from narcolepsy while on active duty 
with  the  Coast  Guard.    The  DVA  denied  the  applicant’s  claim  on  August  21,  1985, 
noting that the “evidence shows that the [applicant’s] sleeping sickness existed prior to 
entry on active duty.  This condition is not shown to have been aggravated incident to 
military service.”  For the next nine years, the applicant made numerous appeals of the 
DVA’s  decision  and  submitted  several  letters  from  physicians  who  had  recently 
diagnosed  him  with  narcolepsy.    None  of  the  documents  submitted  by  the  applicant 
state that his narcolepsy was connected to his Coast Guard service.   

 
On  June  16,  1994,  the  Social  Security  Administration  determined  that  the 
applicant was disabled and unable to perform “significant work” as of March 8, 1991.  
The record does not state whether the applicant was awarded payments for his claimed 
disability. 

 
The applicant’s record contains a letter from the DVA dated July 26, 1996, which 
indicates  that  the  DVA  did  in  fact  award  the  applicant  disability  compensation.    The 
letter  states  that  the  DVA  initially  rated  him  as  having  a  20%  disability  due  to 
narcolepsy,  but  that  it  had  increased  to  80%.    The  letter  states  that  his  entitlement  to 
individual unemployability was granted effective July 17, 1993.  

 
BCMR records indicate that the applicant submitted an application to the BCMR 
in  1988  wherein  he  sought  to  have  his  RE-4  reenlistment  code  upgraded  to  an  RE-1 
(eligible for reenlistment).  That application was denied because it was filed nearly 13 
years after he was discharged. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  March  30,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request. 
 
The  JAG  argued  that  relief  should  be  denied  because  the  applicant  was  never 
 
diagnosed with narcolepsy while he was in the Coast Guard.  The JAG noted that the 
applicant was evaluated for narcolepsy but that “qualified medical personnel decided 

that he did not warrant that diagnosis at the time.”  The JAG further noted that despite 
the letter submitted by the applicant’s commanding officer attesting to the applicant’s 
narcolepsy, the “opinion of qualified medical personnel should be taken over that of the 
…  commanding  officer.”    The  JAG  also  stated  that  the  applicant’s  medical  record 
contains admissions by the applicant that he had a sleeping problem prior to enlisting 
in the Coast Guard.  Finally, the JAG noted that the DVA evaluated all of the evidence 
submitted  by  the  applicant  and  determined  that  he  “was  not  entitled  to  veteran’s 
benefits  for  narcolepsy  because  it  was  a  condition  that  existed  before  the  applicant’s 
entry into military service.” 
 
  
The JAG also noted that the applicant did not explain why he waited so long to 
seek  this  correction  to  his  military  record,  and  that  he  did  not  explain  “his  delay  in 
seeking  to  have  his  record  corrected  until  now,  29  years  after  his  discharge  and  well 
beyond the statutory limit for application to the BCMR.”  The JAG further stated that 
absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  government  officials  are  presumed  to  have 
carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 
F.2d. 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d. 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
Finally,  the  JAG  stated  that  even  if  the  DVA  had  decided  that  the  applicant’s 
narcolepsy  was  service  connected,  such  a  finding  would  still  be  insufficient  to  prove 
that  he  was  entitled  to  a  change  in  his  discharge.    The  JAG  added,  “A  DVA  rating 
awarded  to  applicant  is  not  determinative  of  the  same  issues  involved  in  military 
disability cases.  Lord v. United States, 2 Ct. Cl. 749, 754 (1983), quoted in BCMR Docket 
No. 33-96.  The DVA determines to what extent a veteran’s earning capacity has been 
reduced as a result of specific injuries or combination of injuries.  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.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 6, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Chapter 3.I.1. of the Coast Guard Medical Manual states that certain conditions 
will  be  considered  as  rendering  an  individual  unfit  for  retention  because  of  physical 
disability.  It further states “Each case must be  decided upon the relevant facts and a 
determination  of  fitness  or  unfitness  must  depend  upon  the  individual’s  ability  to 
perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  grade,  rank  or  rating  in  such  a  manner  as  to  fulfill 
reasonably the purpose of his employment on active duty.”  

 
Article 12.B.6.c. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual states that  “if a member 

objects to a finding of physically qualified for separation, the Standard Form 88 together 
with the member’s written objections shall be sent immediately to Commander, (CGPC-
epm-1)  for  review.”    If  necessary  the  member  may  remain  in  service  beyond  the 
enlistment expiration.  
 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.   

 
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  record 
indicates that the applicant signed and received his discharge documents in 1976.  The 
Board finds that the applicant knew or should have known the non-disability nature of 
his  separation  in  1976.    Thus,  his  application  was  untimely  by  more  than  29  years.  
Moreover,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  filed  an  application  with  the  BCMR  in 
1988  in  which  he  sought  an  upgrade  of  his  reenlistment  code.    Therefore,  the  Board 
finds that he was aware of the time constraints imposed upon applicants to the BCMR.  

 
3. 

4. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-year statute 
of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in the 
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should conduct a cursory 
review of the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).   
 
 
The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove that at the time 
of  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  he  suffered  from  a  physical  disability 
(narcolepsy)  that  caused  him  to  be  unfit  to  perform  his  military  duties,  which  is  the 
basis for a separation or retirement by reason of physical disability.  See 2.B.4.2. of the 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual.  A cursory review of the merits 
in this case reveals that the applicant was never diagnosed with narcolepsy or any other 
disability during his time in the Coast Guard.  The record shows that immediately after 
his  enlistment  the  applicant  complained  of  falling  asleep  and  pains  in  his  head  for 
which  he sought treatment.  Coast Guard medical personnel, including a neurologist, 
thoroughly evaluated him and did not find that he suffered from a medical condition.  
The Board finds it significant that the applicant’s Coast Guard medical record shows no 
treatments  for  any  sleeping  complaints  after  August  1972;  that  he  was  found  fit  for 
separation  in  August  1975;  and  that  he  was  discharged  by  reason  of  expiration  of 
enlistment in January 1976.   

 

5. 

The  only  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant  that  he  suffered  from 
narcolepsy  while  on  active  duty  is  a  letter  from  a  former  CO,  which  the  Board  finds 
unpersuasive because the CO offered no evidence that he had the medical training or 
expertise to make such a diagnosis.  His further comment that the applicant routinely 
fell  asleep  and  was  written  up  for  falling  asleep  on  watch  lacks  sufficient  detail  to 
persuade the Board that the applicant suffered from a debilitating condition while on 
active  duty,  and  it  is  not  corroborated  by  any  counseling  entries  in  the  applicant’s 
performance record.  In addition, the CO’s letter appears to have been written well after 
the  applicant’s  discharge  assisting  in  the  applicant  in  obtaining  DVA  benefits.  
Although  narcolepsy  is  listed  in  3.I.1.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  as  a 
potentially  disqualifying  condition,  the  applicant  has  provided  insufficient  evidence 
that he suffered from narcolepsy while on active duty or that he was unable to perform 
the duties of his office, grade, or rank at the time of his discharge.  The Coast Guard’s 
discharge of the applicant by reason of expiration of enlistment was proper.  

 
6. 

The fact that the applicant obtained a DVA rating for narcolepsy in 1993, 
more than sixteen years after his discharge from the Coast Guard, is not proof that he 
suffered from the condition while on active duty or at the time of his discharge in 1976.  
He certainly could have developed the condition during the intervening 16 years. 

 
7. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  completed  his  four-year  enlistment, 
stated that he did not want to reenlist, and accepted a voluntary discharge at the end of 
his enlistment.  He was given a complete physical examination prior to his discharge, 
and although he noted that he had a history of “trouble sleeping,” he did not object to 
the  examining  physician’s  determination  that  he  was  qualified  for  separation.    If  the 
applicant  objected  to  the  finding  that  he  was  qualified  for  separation,  there  was  a 
process in place for him to indicate this and prepare a rebuttal for review by a higher 
Coast  Guard  authority.  See  Article  12.B.6.c.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.  
However, there is no evidence in the record that he attempted to avail himself of this 
process.   

 
8. 

Accordingly, due to the length of the delay, the unpersuasive reason for 
not filing his application sooner, and the probably lack of success on the merits of his 
claim,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations in this case and it should be denied because it is untimely.  

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SN  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  xxx  xx  xxxx,  USCG,  for 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 James G. Parks 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 
 

        

 
 Joseph L. Brinkley 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

correction of his military record is hereby denied.