DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-078 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxx, AMT3 (former) 
   

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed this 
case  on  March  11,  2005,  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 January 18, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was placed 
on  the  permanent  disability  retired  list  with  a  20%  disability  rating  for  lumbosacral 
strain  under  code  5237  of  the  Veterans  Affairs  Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities 
(VASRD)1 in addition to the 20% disability rating under VASRD code 7528-78012 that he 
received  from  the  Coast  Guard,  for  a  combined  rating  of  40%.      The  applicant  was 
discharged  by  reason  of  physical  disability  with  severance  pay  due  to  "malignant 
neoplasm of the genitourinary system, in remission, residuals:  scars, other than head, 
face,  or  neck  that  are  deep  or  that  caused  limited  motion;  area  exceeding  12  square 

                                                 
1   VASRD is a Manual used by PDES boards to assign codes and percentage of disability for an evaluee 
found unfit for duty.  See 38 CFR part 4. 
 
2      VASRD  code  assigned  to  the  applicant  for  "malignant  neoplasm  of  the  genitourinary  system,  in 
remission, residuals:  scars, other  than  head, face, or  neck that are deep or  that  caused limited  motion; 
area exceeding 12 square inches."  

inches" rated as 20% disabling under VASRD code 7528-7801. To be retired by reason of 
physical disability, the applicant's disability must be rated at least 30% disabling.  The 
applicant also complained about the fact that the FPEB considered his disability to be 
none combat-related. 
 
 
 

ALLEGATIONS 

  

The  applicant  spent  approximately  five  years  on  the  Temporary  Disability 
Retired List (TDRL).3  He was subsequently removed from that list, and discharged by 
reason of physical disability with severance pay, as mentioned above.   

 
 The applicant alleged that in addition to suffering from the debilitating residuals 
of  malignant  neoplasm  of  the  genitourinary  system,  he  also  suffered  from  a 
thoracolumbar spine disability, which was not rated by the Formal Physical Evaluation 
Board (FPEB).4   

 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  the  FPEB's  refusal  to  rate  his  back/spinal  injury 
because it found the injury did not exist independently of the reason why he was placed 
on the TDRL, or was not sequelae to this injury, constituted a mistake of law.   In this 
regard, the applicant stated that "the plain language of section 2.C.3.c.(2) of the Physical 
Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual states that . . . 'findings are   . . .  required 
for any impairment not previously rated.'"  The provision further states, "Impairments 
not previously rated shall be considered as incurred while entitled to receive basic pay 
only  when  the  evidence  shows  that  the  condition  existed  prior  to  temporary 
retirement."  The applicant argued that there is no requirement in section 2.C.3.c.(2) of a 
nexus  between  an  additional  injury  (back/spine)  and  the  condition  that  caused  a 
member  to  be  placed  on  the  TDRL  (malignant  neoplasm).    He  cited  Sutherland  on 
Statutory Construction for the principal that "words should be given their common and 
approved  usage."     The  applicant  argued  that  since  there  is  no  mention  of a sequelae 
requirement  in  Chapter  2.C.3.c.(2)  of  the  PDES  Manual,  the  plain  language  of  the 
regulation  makes  it  clear  that  a  member  can  be  assigned  a  disability  rating  for  a 
condition that was incurred prior to being placed on the TDRL irrespective or whether 
there is a nexus between the claimed injury and the TDRL injury.   
 

                                                 
3   The TDRL is a list of members whose disabilities are not yet stable.  A member's temporary disability 
retired pay terminates at the end of 5 years, unless the member is sooner removed from the list.   
4   The FPEB is a fact-finding body, which holds an administrative hearing to evaluate a member's fitness 
for duty and to make recommendations consistent with the findings.  This hearing is not an adversarial 
proceeding,  and  the  implication  of  litigation  must  be  avoided.      See  Chapter  5.A.1.  of  the  Physical 
Disability Evaluation System Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C). 
 

In  this  regard,  the  applicant  asserted  that  his  medical  records  show  that  he 
suffered  from  an  injury  to  his  back/spine  while  on  active  duty  and  that  in  January-
February 1998, prior to his cancer surgery, he required medical treatment for the back 
injury.  The applicant also stated that after cancer surgery he experienced an additional 
exacerbation  of  the  spine  injury  that  required  treatment  on  November  20,  1998,  as 
evidenced by a copy of the medical entry.  He further argued that the medical evidence 
shows that he is currently experiencing marked limitation of motion secondary to this 
injury. 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  his  health  care  provider  had  submitted  a  narrative 
summary  showing  the  direct  correlation  between  the  applicant's  abdominal  scarring 
and its exacerbating effect upon his back injury to the FPEB. The applicant also stated 
that  during  the  FPEB  hearing  he  presented  testimony  from  an  occupational  heath 
practitioner and a physical therapist that he suffered from restricted range of motion in 
the thoracolumbar spine5 of less than 40 degrees on forward flexion.   He argued that 
the FPEB conceded in its findings that he had exhibited back pain prior to being placed 
on the TDRL but still did not find that this injury existed independently of the reason 
why he was placed on the TDRL or was sequelae to the TDRL disability. 
 

The  applicant  submitted  a  May  27,  2004,  letter  that  his  physical  therapist 
submitted on his behalf to the FPEB.  The therapist stated that he had been a therapist 
since 1980 and that he had treated the applicant since March 2000.   He described the 
applicant's physical condition as follows: 

 
[The applicant] was originally referred to physical therapy in March 2000 
for  hypomobility  and  weakness  of  the  trunk  and  pain.    With  the 
progression  of  trunk  exercise,  [the  applicant]  began  to  experience  an 
increase  in  abdominal  discomfort  and  eventual  drainage  from  his 
abdominal scar.  
 
[The applicant] demonstrates 40 [degrees] of cervical flexion, 45 [degrees] 
of cervical extension,  20 [degrees] of right lateral flexion, 27 [degrees] of 
left lateral flexion, 50 [degrees] of right lateral rotations and 59 [degrees] of 
left  lateral  rotation. 
  In  the  thoracolumbar  spine,  [the  applicant] 
demonstrates  39  [degrees]  forward  flexion,  18  [degrees]  of  extension,  23 
[degrees]  of  right  lateral  flexion,  14  [degrees]  of  left  lateral  flexion,  23 
[degrees] of right lateral rotation, and 21 [degrees] of left lateral rotation.  
All of these movements performed to discomfort with repeated measures.  
Strength of the abdominal musculature was grossly graded as 3+ to 4/5, 
with  the  erector  spinae  being  4-  to  4/5.    In  standing  posture,  [the 

                                                 
5   Thoracolumbar spine pertains to the thoracic and lumbar parts of the spine.  See Dorland's Illustrated 
Medical Dictionary, 29th edition, p. 1834.   

applicant]  demonstrates  an  increase  in  thoracic  kyphosis,  abduction  of 
both scapula and a rounding of both shoulders with a slight head forward 
posture.   

 
 
The applicant's primary care physician since May 2003 submitted a letter to the 
FPEB on the applicant's behalf.  Dr. F stated that he was board certified in Occupational 
and Environmental Medicine and was a senior FAA medical examiner.  He offered the 
following: 
 

I have reviewed the measurements of the range of motion conducted by 
[the  applicant's]  treating  physical  therapist    .  .  .  and  concur  with  his 
observations that [the applicant's] thoracolumbar ROM is restricted to less 
than 40 degrees of forward flexions.   
 
In  addition  to  his  back  injury,  [the  applicant]  also  suffers  from  pain 
secondary  to  the  involvement  of  the  abdomen  rectus  muscle  group 
regarding his surgical scar.   
 
[The  applicant]  has  actually  experienced  a  reopening  of  the  scar  while 
attempting to comply with his physical therapy regimen and experiences 
ongoing pain at the scar site itself.   
 
However, the point that I would like to make clear is that his pain is due 
to  damage  that  extends  deeper  than  the  surface  wound  itself  into  the 
abdomen rectus group, causing him pain and discomfort upon bending, 
rotation and extension.   
 
. . . I do not believe [the applicant] is a symptom magnifier.   

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On November 1, 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.   On April 10, 
1995,  the  applicant  reported  to  a  medical  clinic  complaining  of  neck  and  back  pain.  
While the medical note indicated no objective findings, it stated that the applicant was 
placed on limited duty for three days.   
 
 
On June 13, 1995, the applicant reported to the medical clinic complaining of low 
back pain that had existed for two weeks.  The applicant claimed that the pain radiated 
up  the  center of  his  spine,  but  admitted  that  it  varied  from  day to  day.    The  medical 
entry  noted  that  the  applicant  was  a  fireman  and  his  work  required  lifting.        The 
medical  note  indicated  that  there  was  no  history  of  trauma.    The  applicant  was 
diagnosed  with  a  muscle  spasm,  given  medication,  and  placed  on  limited  duty  for 
seven days, with no lifting over 25 pounds.   

 

 

 

 

 
On July 28, 1995, the applicant reported to the medical clinic complaining of low 
back  pain.    The  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  muscle  spasms  and  given  medication.  
An x-ray of the lumbar spine was ordered as well as a physical therapy consultation.  
The medical note indicated that the applicant was fit for duty.   

 
The  x-ray  of  the  lumbar  spine  was  negative.    It  stated,  "The  vertebral  body 
heights,  their  disc  spaces  and  posterior  elements  are  intact  and  in  normal  alignment.  
NO compression fracture is identified.  There are no pars defects.  The sacroiliac joints 
are normal."   

 
An August 23, 1995, physical therapy note indicated that the applicant had been 
evaluated  on  July  31,  1995  for  spondylosis  of  the  lumbar  spine  and  had  had  five 
subsequent visits.  The applicant was placed on a home exercise program.   

 
On January 8, 1998, the applicant reported to the clinic complaining of low back 
pain.    The  applicant  denied  a  recent  history  of  trauma.    He  was  diagnosed  with  a 
mechanical back strain.  He was placed on light duty. 

 
On January 14, 1998, the applicant returned to the clinic for follow-up of his back 
pain.    He  was  diagnosed  with  muscle  spasms  and  prescribed  medication.    He  was 
found not fit for duty for 48 hours and ordered to return to the clinic in two days.  

 
On January 16, 1998, the applicant returned to the clinic for follow-up, where he 
was referred to physical therapy and given light duty for one week with no lifting over 
15 pounds.  A physical therapy consult was provided this same day. 

 
On  January  23,  1998,  the  applicant  reported  to  the  clinic  where  his  pain  was 

noted as resolving.  He was found fit for light duty for 15 days. 

 
On February 5, 1998, the applicant reported to the medical clinic for follow-up 

and was found fit for duty.   

 
On February 24, 1998, March 3, 1998, and March 10, 1998, the applicant appears 

to have had physical therapy treatments.   

 
On March 19, 1998, the applicant reported to the clinic complaining about a lump 

in his testicle.   

 

On April 9, 1998, the applicant underwent a radical orchiectomy,6 and on April 
30,  1998,  he  underwent  a  left  modified  nerve  sparing  retroperitoneal7  lymph  node 
dissection.   
 

From  May  through  July  21,  1998,  the  applicant  had  several  limited  duty  and 
medical board evaluations.  The July 21, 1998, medical board diagnosed the applicant as 
suffering  from  "Stage  T2N1MO  Mixed  Non-seminomatous  germ  cell  tumor  of  the 
testis."    The  medical  board  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  offered  two  years  of 
limited duty for follow-up of his cancer, but now desired a medical board.  The medical 
board  determined  that  the  applicant's  condition  interfered  with  the  reasonable 
performance  of  his  assigned  duties  and  on  that  basis  referred  his  case  to  the  Coast 
Guard  reviewing  authority  for  determination.    The  medical  board  stated  that  while 
awaiting  the  results  of  the  Physical  Evaluation  Board,  the  applicant  would  require 
monthly follow-ups for two years, but otherwise his physical activities were unlimited.  
The medical board noted that if the applicant were retained in the military he would 
require an assignment near a major medical center for follow-up appointments.    

 
The applicant's commanding officer (CO), as required by regulation, commented 
on the report of the medical board8 and recommended approval.  The CO described the 
applicant  as  a  conscientious,  hardworking  member  of  the  unit  who  is  called  upon  to 
serve  as  an  air  crewman  on  local  flights  and  frequent  C130  deployments  for  three  to 
seven  days  while  not  performing  C130  aircraft  maintenance.    The  CO  stated  that  the 
applicant's  duties  were  consistent  with  those  of  his  peers,  and  that  prior  to  and  since 
recuperation from chemotherapy for his cancer, the applicant had been able to perform 
all duties assigned and expected of him.  According to the CO, the applicant  worked 
with  his  supervisors  to  meet  all  expectations,  but  had  encountered  some  difficulty  in 
scheduling  and  meeting  follow-up  medical  appointments.    The  CO  noted  that  the 
applicant  had  decided  to  leave  the  Coast  Guard  and  return  to  the  civilian  workforce 
and  wanted  to  be  discharged  on  May  1,  1999.    The  CO  recommended  favorable 
consideration  for  the  applicant's  concerns  about  the  inability  to  obtain  medical 
insurance once discharged from the Coast Guard.   

 
On  October  5,  1998,  the  applicant  submitted  a  rebuttal  to  the  finding  of  the 
medical board, expressing concern about the need for ongoing medical treatment and 
the  unlikelihood  of  obtaining  health  insurance  once  he  was  out  of  the  Service.    The 
                                                 
6   Orchiectomy is the excision of one or both testes.  See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 29th 
Edition, p. 1274.   
 
7   Retroperitoneal means external to or posterior to the peritoneum.  Id. at 1568.  The peritoneum is the 
serous membrane lining the abdominopelvic walls.  Id. at 1358.   
 
8   Apparently a medical board was held in June 1998 on which the applicant's CO provided comment.  
Apparently this medical board had recommended placing the applicant on limited duty, after which he 
was expected to be fit for full duty.   

medical  board  referred  the  applicant's  case  to  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board 
(CPEB).   

 
On  February  8,  1999,  the  CPEB  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering  from 
"Malignant  Neoplasm  of  the  Genitourinary  System  Rated  as  Renal  Dysfunction."      It 
recommended that the applicant be temporarily retired with a 30% disability rating.  On 
March  15,  1999,  the  applicant  accepted  the  findings  of  the  CPEB,  and  he  was 
subsequently placed on the TDRL.   
 

On November 11, 1999, a medical note indicated that the applicant complained 
about low back pain.  The doctor prescribed medications and exercise for the applicant 
and placed him on light duty, with no lifting greater than 20 pounds.   

 
On  October  25,  2000,  the  applicant  underwent  his  first  TDRL  periodic 
examination.9    The  TDRL  report  stated  that  the  applicant  reported  no  current 
complaints.  The physician recommended that the applicant be continued on the TDRL 
and noted no significant change in the applicant's condition since his initial placement 
on the TDRL.   The physical examination revealed the following: 

 
Patient  is  a  healthy  appearing  25-year-old  Caucasian  male  in  no  acute 
distress.  Neck is supple without adenopathy or bruits.  Lungs are clear to 
auscultation  bilaterally.    Cardiovascular  exam  shows  a  regular  rate  and 
rhythm without murmurs, rubs or gallops.  Back is without CVA or spinal 
tenderness.    Abdominal  exam  shows  a  well-healed  midline  abdominal 
incision.    Patient  has  normoactive  bowel  sounds  and  has  no  palpable 
abdominal  masses.    The  patient  also  has  a  left  inguinal  incision.    The 
patient has normal phallus.  His left testicle is surgically absent.  His right 
testicle is normal without evidence of mass.  His extremities are without 
clubbing,  cyanosis  or  edema.    His  neurological  examination  is  grossly 
non-focal.  [Emphasis added.] 
 
In February 2003, the applicant underwent a second TDRL medical examination.  
The medical report dated February 28, 2003, noted that the applicant had no complaints, 
weight loss, or constitutional symptoms.  The medical report stated that the applicant 
was  "approaching  five  year  disease  free  interval  from  nonseminomatous  germ  cell 
tumor with evidence of recurrence." 

 

                                                 
9   A member on the TDRL must undergo periodic physical examinations and CPEB review to determine 
if the member's condition has stabilized sufficiently to adjudicate the case.  An examination is required (1) 
at least once every 18 months; (2) not less than 12 months prior to the termination of 5 years from the date 
the  member  was  first  placed  on  the  TDRL;  and  or  (3)  at  any  other  time  as  specified  by  appropriate 
authority.  See Chapter 8.C. of the Physical Disability Evaluation Manual.    

The  applicant's  record  also  contains  an  April  8,  2003,  letter  from  a  physical 
therapy  rehabilitation  clinic,  which  stated  that  during  March  and  April  2000,  the 
applicant was a patient following a motor vehicle accident.  It stated the following:   

 
[The applicant] was a patient in our physical therapy clinic during March 
and April of 2000, following a motor vehicle accident.  With the treatment 
progression  associated  with  his  low  back  pain,  we  initiated  trunk 
strengthening.    During  trunk  strengthening,  [the  applicant]  experienced 
both  subjective  discomfort  and  eventual  objective  drainage  from  his 
abdominal  scar.    This  occurred  with  abdominal  strengthening.    In  his 
chart on 4/05/2000, the subjective complaint of abdominal discomfort is 
noted.    To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  by  decreasing  his  abdominal 
strengthening, [the applicant's] discomfort resolved.   
 
In or around February 2004, the applicant underwent a third TRDL examination.  
The  medical  report  notes  that  the  applicant  complained  about  occasional  back  pain.  
Upon  physical  examination,  the  doctor  reported  that  the  applicant  was  alert  and 
oriented; that he had no cervical or supraclavicular adenopathy; that his abdomen was 
without palpable mass; that he had a 21 cm midline scar 1 cm in width, mildly tender; 
that his right testicle was without mass; that his left testicle was absent; and that he had 
flexion and extension of the back, was nontender, and no limited motion on exam. 

 
On March 3, 2004, the applicant underwent a retirement/medical board physical 
  The  applicant  was  found  not  qualified  for  service  during  this 
examination. 
examination.  The medical report did not clearly state why the applicant was found not 
fit for duty, but the President of the CPEB (discussed later) attributed the finding to the 
applicant's tender scar that partially impeded the applicant's mobility.   

 
After  approximately  five  years  on  the  TDRL,  the  CPEB  met  and  found  the 
applicant unfit for duty because of "malignant neoplasm of the genitourinary system, in 
remission,  residuals:    rated  as  scar,  superficial  on  examination."    The  CPEB  rated  the 
applicant's disability as 10% disabling and recommended his discharge with severance 
pay.    The  President  of  the  CPEB  attached  an  amplifying  statement  noting  that  the 
applicant's  cancer  was  in  full  remission  and  that  a  loss  of  one  testicle  was  not  an 
unfitting condition.  The amplifying statement noted that the applicant did not pass a 
flight  physical  on  March  3,  2004,  due  to  a  tender  scar  that  partially  impeded  his 
mobility, which was a ratable residual of the original unfitting condition.  On May 26, 
2004, the applicant rejected the findings of the CPEB and demanded a hearing before 
the FPEB.   

 
On June 17, 2004, the FPEB agreed that the applicant was unfit for duty due to  
"malignant neoplasm of the genitourinary system, in remission, residuals:  scars, other 
than head, face, or neck that are deep or that cause limited motion; area exceeding 12 

square inches" and rated his disability as 20% disabling under VASRD code 7528-7801.  
The  FPEB  also  attached  an  amplifying  statement,  which  contained  the  following  in 
pertinent part: 

 
In considering this case, the [FPEB] did review evidence concerning [the 
applicant's] claim of spine impairment.  The [FPEB] did find evidence in 
the record that [the applicant] had experienced back pain and that his pain 
was  documented  prior  to  his  being  placed  on  the  TDRL  in  February  of 
1999.   However, the [FPEB] determined from the medical evidence that 
the back pain existed independent of his reasons for being placed on the 
TDRL and furthermore, was not sequalae, while on TDRL, to the reason 
for  his  being  placed  on  the  TDRL.    The  [FPEB]  determined  that  [the 
applicant's]  disability  was  not  incurred  during  combat  and  was  not  the 
result of an instrumentality of war.   
 
On  June  30,  2004,  the  applicant  submitted  a  rebuttal  to  the  findings  and 
recommendations of the FPEB.  He argued then as he argues before this Board that the 
FPEB's failure to rate his thoracolumbar spine injury was a mistake of law and that it 
should have rated the applicant's spine injury as 20% disabling.  

 
On July 8, 2004, the President of the FPEB denied the applicant's rebuttal.  The 

President of the FPEB stated the following, in pertinent part: 

 
The [FPEB] considered your claim that [it] made a mistake of law  . . . in its 
finding of June 17, 2004  . . . Title 10 USC Chapter 61, Sec 1210 . . . required 
the Secretary to make a final determination in TDRL cases on the physical 
disability(s) "for which the member's name was carried on the temporary 
disability  retired  list."    Your  interpretation  of  [Section  2.C.3.c.(2)  of  the 
PDES    Manual]  inappropriately  expands  the  law  .  .  .  and  this  is  not 
permitted.  The aforementioned section of [the PDES Manual] as written, 
pertains to entitlement to receive basic pay if the disability existed prior to 
retirement.    The  [FPEB]  does  recognize  you  had  a  pre-existing  back 
impairment at the time of your separation for TDRL.  However, the record 
does not support your claim that this was an unfitting condition.    

 

The [FPEB] then considered your claim that other services making TDRL 
final determinations allow for disabilities that were not part of the original 
TDRL finding.  The other services subject to Title 10 USC Chapter 61 make 
allowances  for  these  disabilities  if  they  are  documented  prior  to  the 
member  being  separated  and  if  they  are  deemed  unfitting.    Once  again,  
the [FBEP] reviewed the medical evidence in this case and found that your 
back  condition  taken  independently  at  the  time  of  your  temporary 

retirement, would not have made you permanently unfit for duty at that 
time.   
 
The  [FPEB]  considered  additional  medical  evidence  provided  by  Dr.  [F] 
regarding his opinion of the nexus between your existing back condition 
and  the  possible  worsening  of  this  condition  by  the  existence  of  your 
abdominal scar . . . The Board recognizes Dr. ]F's] opinion.  However, the 
preponderance of the evidence in this case shows you never claimed your 
back  condition  as  being  disabling  or  making  you  unfit  for  duty,  even 
though you had several opportunities to do so both prior to your going on 
the TDRL and during your TDRL period (all while your scar was healing).  
More significantly the record shows your back condition only became an 
issue after (and in direct response to, given the medical treatment sought) 
you  had  a  motor  vehicle  accident  during  the  course  of  your  five-year 
TDRL  period.    The  evidence  shows  it  was  this  incident,  if  any,  and  not 
your scar, that exacerbated your back condition.  Based on the above, your 
back condition is not sequelae to the condition for which you were placed 
on  the  TDRL.    Furthermore  your  back  condition  at  the  time  you  were 
placed  on  the  TDRL  did  not  make  you  unfit  for  duty,  independently  of 
your testicular cancer condition.   
 
 
On September 7, 2004, the PRC reviewed the findings of the FPEB and found no 
errors in the findings of the FPEB and concurred with the findings and disposition.   On 
September  23,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  found  the  PEB  proceedings  to  be  in 
accepted form and technically correct, the findings to be supported by the evidence of 
record, and the recommended disposition to be supported by the evidence of record.   
 
 
On September 27, 2004, the Deputy, Coast Guard Personnel Command directed 
that the applicant's name be removed from the TDRL and that he be separated from the 
Coast Guard with severance pay.   

  

 

Decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 

 
On  or  about  September  9,  1999,  the  DVA  rated  the  applicant  as  being  10% 
disabled  due  to  Tender  Abdominal  Scar,  10%  disabled  for  low  back  strain,  and  10% 
disabled  due  to  Tender  Testicular  Scar  for  a  combined  disability  rating  of  30%.      The 
applicant underwent a DVA compensation and pension examination on August 3, 1999, 
approximately  three  months  after  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  physical 
examination  of  the  applicant's  abdomen  and  musculoskeletal  areas  revealed  the 
following pertinent information: 

 
ABDOMEN:  There is a surgical scar . . . [which] is slightly hypertrophic    
.  .  .  Very  light  stroking  causes  discomfort  along  the  scar.    Any  deeper 

palpation  in  the  scar  area  at  all,  is  reported  as  a  deep  aching  sensation.   
We find no organomegaly.   Bowel sounds are normal. 

 

MUSCULOSKELETAL:  He undresses with no difficulty.  He stands erect 
with  the  shoulders  and  pelvis  level.    With  straight  knees,  he  can  bend 
forward getting his fingertips within about 2 inches from the toes and can 
return to the upright position with no difficulty.  In the seated position, he 
will flex forward getting his shoulders down as far as his knees.  He will 
extend about 15-20 degrees.  He complains of mild generalized low back 
pain on extension movement, but not on flexion.  He will rotate the trunk 
bilaterally  about  80  degrees  and  side  bend  bilaterally  about  40  degrees 
without any pain or discomfort.   In the cervical area, he will flex the head 
forward about 50 degrees, extend it about 50 degrees, rotate bilaterally 85 
degrees,  and  side  bend  bilaterally  about  40  degrees  without  pain  or 
discomfort.         
 
On  or  about  November  3,  2004,  the  DVA  increased  the  applicant's  disability 
rating to 20% for Tender Abdominal Scar, and 20% due to low back strain.  The DVA 
did  not  increase  the  applicant's  10%  rating  for  Tender  Testicular  Scar.    The  DVA 
assigned  the  applicant  a  combined  DVA  rating  of  40%.    To  obtain  an  increase  in  his 
disability  rating,  the  applicant  underwent  a  physical  examination  on  July  20,  2004, 
approximately five years after his placement on the TDRL.  X-rays of the lumbar spine 
were  taken  and  revealed  "normal  alignment  of  the  lumbosacral  vertebrae.    The  disc 
spaces  are  preserved.    No  bony  or  joint  abnormality  is  seen."    The  radiologist's 
impression was that of a "normal . . .  lumbosacral spine."  The physician stated that the 
applicant's rectus abdominis muscle contracted normally in all of the tested maneuvers 
and  there  was  no  evidence  of  diastasis  recti.    The  physician  noted  that  the  applicant 
stated that he had been told that his rectus abdominis muscle did not work properly, 
which was related to his pain and back pain.  However, this doctor stated that he could 
not confirm the applicant's statement in this regard because the applicant had normal 
rectus  abdominis  muscle  function  at  that  time.    The  physician  further  stated  that  the 
applicant's  "subjective  complain[t]s  far  outstrips  any  objective  findings  on  today's 
examination." 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  March  28,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  

 
The  JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  failed  to  show  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  that  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  legal  error  by  not  rating  his  back 
condition.  The JAG stated that the only evidence submitted by the applicant to prove 

his allegation is his reference to Article 2.C.3.c.(2) of the PDES Manual which states in 
part:    ".  .  .    Impairments  not  previously  rated  shall  be  considered  as  incurred  while 
entitled to receive basic pay only when the evidence shows that the condition existed 
prior to temporary retirement."  The JAG also noted that Article 2.C.3.C(3) of the PDES 
Manual states that "An impairment  incurred after temporary retirement shall be found 
"Not incurred while entitled to receive basic pay."   

 
The JAG noted that the FPEB reviewed evidence concerning the applicant's spine 
and found that the back pain existed independently of his reason for being placed on 
the  TDRL  and  was  not  sequalae  to  the  reason  for  the  applicant's  placement  on  the 
TDRL.   
 

The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  has  the  burden  of  proving  error  or  injustice, 
but failed to do so in this case.   He argued that absent strong evidence to the contrary, 
it is presumed that Coast Guard officials carried out their duties lawfully, correctly, and 
in good faith.  See Arens v. United States, 969 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1990).    

 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  DVA  rating  for  the  applicant's  low  back  strain  is  not 
persuasive that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by not rating the back 
condition given the different standard employed by the DVA.  In this regard, the JAG 
argued that the DVA rating is not determinative of issues involved in military disability 
cases.  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  to  which  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 40% disabled is not relevant to 
the  Coast  Guard's  finding  that  he  was  20%  disabled  based  solely  on  the 
conditions  that  rendered  him  unfit  for  continued  service  at  the  time  of  his 
separation.    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.    

 

 
The  JAG  attached  comments  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command  (CGPC),  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion.    CGPC  stated  that  the 
applicant was afforded all of his due process rights with respect to the processing of his 
case through the PDES.  He stated he found no error in the process or the decision of the 
FPEB.  Moreover, he stated that the preponderance of the evidence in the case shows 
the applicant never claimed that his back condition was disabling or made him unfit for 
duty  until  he  had  a  motor  vehicle  accident  during  the  course  of  his  five-year  TDRL 
period.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On September 6, 2005, the Board received the applicant's response to the views of 
the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard's  position  that  his  back 
condition was not sequelae to the condition that placed him on the TDRL is incorrect.  
In this regard, he noted the following: 
 

a.  There is no dispute that the [applicant] suffered a lumbar spine injury 
while  on  active  duty  that  required  him  to  seek  medical  treatment  in 
January  to  February  1998  time  period,  a  time  frame  approximately  two 
months  prior  to  the  surgery  for  testicular  cancer  that  would  eventually 
place him on the TDRL.   
 
b.  Likewise there is no dispute that he experienced an exacerbation of this 
injury after his cancer surgery in the fall of 1998, a period of time that was 
several  months  after  the  two  surgical  procedures  to  treat  his  testicular 
cancer.   
 
c.    Where  the  agency's  analysis  of  the  sequelae  issue  falls  short  is  in  its 
failure to produce any evidence refuting the medical opinion establishing 
a  causal  nexus  between  [the  applicant's]  abdominal  surgery  to  treat  his 
cancer and his back injury.   
 
d.    [T]he  board-certified  occupational  health  provider  who  has  been 
treating  the  [applicant]  since  placement  on  the  TDRL  stated  that  the 
scarring on the [applicant's] abdominus rectus muscle group secondary to 
the surgeries performed in 1998 caused additional strain on his back and 
aggravated his previous back injury.   

 
The applicant also argued that the Coast Guard is incorrect in its assertion that 
 
his back injury was not separately unfitting at the time that he was placed on the TDRL.  
In  this  regard,  he  noted  that  the  Coast  Guard  conceded  that  the  applicant  suffered  a 
spine injury prior to being placed on the TDRL.  The applicant stated that the medical 
evidence  shows  that  the  injury  was  exacerbated  in  January-February  1998  and  in 

November 1998, a period of time after the surgeries.  Therefore, he argued that a nexus 
is established between the surgeries and the aggravation of the applicant's spine.   
 
 

SUMMARY OF 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.” 
 
Provisions of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C)  
 
 
The PDES Manual governs the separation of members due to physical disability.  
Chapter 3 provides that an IMB of two medical officers shall conduct a thorough medi-
cal  examination,  review  all  available  records,  and  issue  a  report  with  a  narrative 
description  of  the  member’s  impairments,  an  opinion  as  to  the  member’s  fitness  for 
duty and potential for further military service, and if the member is found unfit, a refer-
ral  to  a  CPEB.    The  member  is  advised  about  the  PDES  and  permitted  to  submit  a 
response to the IMB report.   
 

Chapter  3.I.7.  provides  that  before  forwarding  an  IMB  report  to  the  CPEB,  the 
member’s CO shall endorse it “with a  full recommendation based on knowledge and 
observation  of  the  member’s  motivation  and  ability  to  perform.”    The  endorsement 
must include a summary of the duties normally associated with the member’s grade or 
rating and a statement regarding the member’s ability to perform those duties. 
 
 
Chapter 4 provides that a CPEB, composed of at least one senior commissioned 
officer and one medical officer (not members of the IMB), shall review the IMB report, 
the CO’s endorsement, and the member’s medical records.  Chapter 4.A.5.7. provides 
that if the CPEB finds that the evidence is insufficient for a proper determination, it will 
return  the  case  to the member’s  command  for  a  Disposition  Medical  Board  (DMB)  to 
amplify the record.   
 

 
Chapter 2.C.2.a. provides that the “sole standard” that a CPEB or FPEB may use 
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 dis-
ease or injury incurred or aggravated through military service.” 

 
Chapter 2.C.3.a.(3)(a)  provides that, if a CPEB (or subsequently an FPEB) finds 

that the member is unfit for duty because of a permanent disability, it will  

 
propose ratings for those disabilities which are themselves physically unfitting or which 
relate to or contribute to the condition(s) that cause the evaluee to be unfit for continued 
duty.  The board shall not rate an impairment that does not contribute to the condition of 
unfitness or cause the evaluee to be unfit for duty along  with another condition that is 
determined  to  be  disqualifying  in  arriving  at  the  rated  degree  of  incapacity  incident  to 
retirement  from  military  service  for  disability.    In  making  this  professional  judgment, 
board members will only rate those disabilities which make an evaluee unfit for military 
service or which contribute to his or her inability to perform military duty.  In accordance 
with the current VASRD, the percentage of disability existing at the time of evaluation, 
the code number and diagnostic nomenclature for each disability and the combined per-
centage of disability will be provided.  

 
 
Chapter 9.A.8. provides that if “a medical condition which causes or contributes 
to unfitness for military service is of such mild degree that it does not meet the criteria 
even  for  the  lowest  rating  provided  in  the  VASRD  …  [a]  zero  percent  rating  may  be 
applied in such cases.” 
 
Chapter  9.A.1.c.  states  that  there  is  no  legal  requirement,  in  making  disability 
 
retirement  determinations,  to  rate  a  physical  condition,  not  in  itself  considered  to  be 
disqualifying for military service, along with another condition that is determined to be 
disqualifying, in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity incident to retirement from 
military  service  for  disability.    This  section  further  states  that  "except  [for  rating 
residuals]  board  members  will  not rate  those  disabilities  neither  unfitting  for  military 
service nor contributing to the inability to perform military duty."     
 

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.  The application was timely. 

  
2.  The applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error by not 
rating  his  back  condition  prior  to  his  removal  from  the  TDRL  and  discharge  with 
severance  pay  by  reason  of  physical  disability  due  to  "malignant  neoplasm  of  the 

genitourinary system, in remission, residuals:  scars, other than head, face, or neck that 
are deep or that caused limited motion; area exceeding 12 square inches" rated as 20% 
disabling.   The applicant is correct that under Chapter 2.C.3.c.(2) of the PDES Manual, 
an impairment that is unfitting for duty should be rated during the physical disability 
evaluation  process  whether  or  not  it  resulted  from  or  is  related  to  the  reason  for  the 
applicant's placement on the TDRL. Chapter 2.C.3.c.(2) of the PDES Manual states when 
the CPEB (or FPEB) reviews the case of a member on the TDRL findings are required for 
any impairment not previously rated. This provision further states that "[i]mpairments 
not previously rated shall be considered as incurred while entitled to receive basic pay 
only  when  the  evidence  shows  that  the  condition  existed  prior  to  temporary 
retirement."  [Emphasis in regulation.] 

 
3.    Whether  or  not  the  FPEB's  basis  for  refusing  to  rate  the  applicant's 
back/spinal injury contained in its amplifying statement constitutes a mistake of law is 
subject to interpretation.  The questionable statement was " the [FPEB] determined from 
the  medical  evidence  that  the  back  pain  existed  independent  of  his  reasons  for  being 
placed on the TDRL and furthermore, was not sequalae, while on TDRL, to the reason 
for his being placed on the TDRL."  However, the Board finds that if such statement in 
the amplifying comments constituted a mistake, it was cured by the FPEB's reply to the 
applicant's  rebuttal.    The  reason  offered  by  the  FPEB  in  its  reply  for  not  rating  the 
applicant's alleged back/spinal injury is in accord with law and regulation.  The FPEB 
stated  in  its  reply  to  the  applicant's  rebuttal  that  although  there  was  evidence  in  the 
record that the applicant had a back/spinal injury prior to placement on the TDRL, the 
record did not support a finding that such injury caused the applicant to be unfit for 
military duty, nor did it contribute to the applicant's unfitness for duty caused by his 
testicular cancer.   

 
4.  Other provisions of the PDES Manual support the FPEB's interpretation of the 
regulation as put forth in its reply to the applicant's rebuttal.    Chapter 2.C.2.a. of the 
PDES  Manual  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  addition,  Chapter  2.C.3.a.(3)(a)  of  the PDES  Manual  states 
that  the  CPEB  rates  only  “those  disabilities  which  make  an  evaluee  unfit  for  military 
service  or  which  contribute  to  his  or  her  inability  to  perform  military  duty.”  Last, 
Chapter 9.A.1.c. of the PDES Manual states that there is no legal requirement, in making 
disability  retirement  determinations,  to  rate  a  physical  condition,  not  in  itself 
considered to be disqualifying for military service, along with another condition that is 
determined to be disqualifying, in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity incident to 
retirement from military service for disability.  This section further states, "except [for 
rating  residuals]  board  members  will  not  rate  those  disabilities  neither  unfitting  for 
military service nor contributing to the inability to perform military duty." 

 

5.    Taking  into  consideration  the  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 or contributed to his unfitness for military duty, i.e. unable to 
perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.   Chapter 2.A.38 defines physical 
disability  as  any  manifest  or  latent  physical  impairment  that  separately  makes  or  in 
combination make a member unfit for continued duty. Chapter 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. Chapter 2.C.2.f.i. makes 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.  
 

6.      The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  did  not  prove  that  his  back/spinal 
condition caused him to be unfit to perform the duties of rate or rating.  In this regard, 
the Board finds no medical statement that the applicant was rendered unfit for duty as a 
result of his back/spinal injury.  The medical board report that referred the applicant's 
case  to  the  CPEB  did  not  mention  or  diagnose  the  applicant  as  suffering  from  back 
pain/injury.  In fact, the medical board report of July 21, 1998, noted that the applicant 
was a well-developed, well-nourished male in no acute distress.   Even the applicant's 
CO stated that the applicant had been able to perform all duties assigned and expected 
of him prior to and since his recuperation from chemotherapy. Chapter 2.C.2.a. states 
that the CO's statement is critical in determining how the applicant's conditions affected 
his ability to do his job.  The evidence further shows that the applicant was placed on 
the TDRL on March 15, 1999 due to "malignant neoplasm of the genitourinary system" 
with a 30% disability rating and that no other disabilities were rated by the CPEB at that 
time.    The  applicant  accepted  the  findings  of  the  1999  CPEB  and  was  placed  on  the 
TDRL with a 30% disability rating. 

 
7.  In addition, the applicant was on the TDRL for approximately five years and 
had three periodic TDRL examinations during that time.  The medical reports for the 
first  two  examinations  did  not  mention  a  back/spinal  injury  or  back  pain.    The  first 
periodic  examination  occurred  on  or  about  October  25,  2000,  and  the  medical  report 
stated that the applicant had no complaints and noted that his "back is without CVA or 
spinal  tenderness."    The  second  periodic  examination  occurred  in  February  2003,  and 
the  medical  report  stated  that  the  applicant  had  no  complaints,  weight  loss,  or 
constitutional symptoms." 

 
8.    The  third  periodic  examination  occurred in  February  2004,  and  the  medical 
report noted that the applicant had some back pain, but it also stated that the applicant 
had flexion and extension of the back, was  nontender, and had no limited motion on 
exam. 

 
 
9.    The  applicant  argued  that  the  evidence  from  a  physical  therapist  and  Dr.  F 
proves that his back injury is secondary to his testicular cancer surgery to his abdomen.  

The physical therapist states in his May 27,  2004 letter to the FPEB that the applicant 
was  originally  referred  to  physical  therapy  in  March  2000  for  hypomobility  and 
weakness of the trunk and pain.  However, the therapist failed to state, as he did in an 
earlier  April  8,  2003,  letter,  that the  applicant  had  been  in  an  automobile  accident  for 
which he received physical therapy treatments in March and April of 2000.  This 2003 
letter  also  stated  that  the  applicant  experienced  discomfort  and  drainage  from  the 
abdominal scar during the trunk strengthening exercises.  Therefore, it appears to the 
Board that the applicant's physical therapy treatments and back pain were attributable 
at that time to injuries caused by the automobile accident.   
 
 
10.    Dr.  F  stated  in  his  May  28,  2004,  letter  to  the  FPEB  that  the  applicant  had 
suffered a reopening of the surgical scar while attempting to comply with his physical 
therapy regimen.  However, the Board notes that the physical therapist's letter of April 
8, 2003, indicated that the physical therapy treatments that resulted in the reopening of 
the applicant's scar were prescribed after the applicant was involved in an automobile 
accident  and  appeared  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  cancer  treatment  or  surgeries.  
Therefore, the Board is not persuaded that the physical therapy treatments were related 
to any condition that the applicant had prior to his placement on the TDRL. Nor is the 
Board persuaded by Dr. F's statement that the applicant suffered pain secondary to the 
involvement  of  the  abdomen  rectus  muscle  group  resulting  from  his  surgical  scar.  In 
contrast, the Board notes that the DVA's medical examination of the applicant on July 
20, 2004, approximately two months later, revealed, "normal rectus abdominis muscle 
function."  During  the  five  years  that  the  applicant  was  on  the  TDRL,  he  did  not 
complain about pain in his abdomen rectus muscle group until his time on the TDRL 
was  about  to  expire.  Here,  it  is  important  to  note  that  Dr.  F  did  not  state  that  the 
applicant's back/spine injury caused him to be disabled or unfit to perform the duties 
of  his  rate.      As  stated  above,  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.    To  be  rated  for  a  back  disability  while  in  the  Coast 
Guard, the applicant must prove that he incurred the disability while entitled to basic 
pay and that it rendered him unfit or contributed to his unfitness to perform the duties 
of his rate or rating.  The applicant has not met his burden of proof on this issue.   

 
11.    Although  the  applicant  submitted  evidence  showing  that  the  DVA  has 
determined that he is 40% percent disabled, such evidence does not establish error by 
the Coast Guard.  This Board has consistently held that a higher disability rating from 
the  DVA  does  not  of  itself  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."   
 

12.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  by  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he 
suffered a back/spinal injury that caused him to be unfit for duty at the time he was 
placed  on  the  TDRL  or  contributed  to  his  unfitness  due  to  testicular  cancer  and 
surgeries while on the TDRL. The applicant received all due process to which he was 
entitled under the Physical Disability Evaluation System and has failed to prove that the 
Coast Guard committed an error or injustice in his case.  The Board would note that the 
CPEB, FPEB, PRC, and the JAG reviewed the applicant's case, and none found that his 
back/spine injury was unfitting for military service or contributed to his unfitness due 
to his testicular cancer and surgeries.   

 
13.    The  applicant  complained  about  the  FPEB's  finding  that  his  disability  was 
not  combat-related  but  provided  no  argument  or  evidence  to  show  that  the  FPEB 
committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  making  such  a  finding  or  that  the  finding  was 
erroneous.    The  Board  has  consistently  held  that  a  mere  allegation  is  insufficient  to 
prove error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board will not disturb the finding of the FPEB in 
this regard.   
 

14.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former AMT3 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

ORDER 

 

 
 

his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young