DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-108 
 
  
   

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed the 
case on May 20, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated March 8, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was placed 
 
on  the  Temporary  Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL)  upon  his  release  from  active  duty 
(RELAD) on March 3, 2005, and that he be awarded disability retirement pay from his 
date of release.  He alleged that prior to his release, he was unfit for duty because he 
suffered from “Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent—Severe Without Psychotic Fea-
tures,” as well as from severe pain and a limited range of motion in both shoulders.   
 

The  applicant  alleged  that,  prior  to  his  release  from  active  duty,  he  requested 
evaluation by an Initial Medical Board (IMB) and processing under the Physical Disabil-
ity Evaluation System (PDES).  However, his command ignored his request and he was 
released without proper evaluation.  The applicant stated that in December 2004, a phy-
sician’s assistant (PA)  found him  fit for duty but that the finding was erroneous as it 
was  based  upon  the  PA’s  own  assessment  of  his  shoulders,  rather  than  a  doctor’s 
assessment, and because his psychiatric condition was not taken into consideration.  

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On January 26, 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  (He had 
served in the Marine Corps on active duty from May 22, 1963, through August 22, 1966, 
and in the Marine Corps Reserve from August 23, 1966, through January 25, 1980.) 
 
 
The  applicant  was  recalled  to  active  duty  in  March  2003.    In  May  2003,  the 
applicant  underwent  surgery  on  bilateral  inguinal  hernias.    In  July  2003,  he  sought 
treatment for bilateral shoulder pain and was diagnosed with nerve impingement and 
bursitis.  Physical therapy did not resolve his pain.  On November 13, 2003, the appli-
cant underwent surgery (acromioplasty) on his right shoulder (rotator cuff).  In Febru-
ary 2004, he underwent prostate surgery.  On March 4, 2004, he underwent an acromio-
plasty on his left shoulder.  Following the surgeries, the applicant underwent regular 
physical therapy.  He returned to work in a “limited duty status” on June 14, 2004.  A 
doctor noted that the applicant’s right shoulder was doing well but that the applicant 
still complained of pain in his left shoulder.  The applicant is left handed. 
 
 
On July 19, 2004, the applicant asked his primary physician, Dr. B, whether he 
could be evaluated by a medical board.  The applicant told Dr. B that he believed that 
his shoulder would “never be 100%.” Dr. B noted that he explained to the applicant that 
not being “100%” would not trigger evaluation by a medical board. 
 
 
On  September  22,  2004,  the  applicant  sought  help  for  symptoms  of  anxiety, 
insomnia, fatigue, and inability to focus.  He was interviewed by a psychology intern 
and told her that he was concerned that he would not be able to return to his prior work 
as an independent contractor installing alarm systems upon his release from active duty 
because of his shoulder pain.  The intern diagnosed “Major Depressive Disorder, Recur-
rent—Severe Without Psychotic Features.”  A supervising psychologist, Dr. K, reviewed 
the intern’s notes and concurred in the diagnosis. 
 
 
On September 30, 2004, a PA noted that the applicant had a free range of motion 
and “4/5” strength in his right shoulder and, in his left shoulder, forward elevation to 
180  degrees,  abduction  to  160  degrees,  and  “3+/5”  strength.    The  PA  diagnosed  the 
applicant with chronic bilateral shoulder impingement with pain but found him “fit for 
current billet; should not engage in overhead activity/PSU/sea marshal activities.”  The 
applicant resumed regular physical therapy. 
 
 
On  October  4,  2004,  the  applicant  consulted  Dr.  B,  who  noted  that  he  had 
reviewed the PA’s notes dated September 30, 2004, and that the applicant was fit for full 
duty.  Dr. B also wrote that the applicant should continue taking medication and physi-
cal therapy for his shoulder pain and was “doing well” on medication for depression. 
 
 
On  October  13,  2004,  following  his  first  therapy  appointment,  the  psychology 
intern noted that the applicant “is pursuing a medical board review at work, but it is 

slow in coming and he feels much resistance from his doctor and superiors.”  She noted 
that he would return for another appointment in two weeks.  Dr. K noted that he con-
curred in the intern’s observations and plan.  In November 2004, the applicant began 
weekly therapy sessions with the intern under Dr. K’s supervision. 
 
 
On November 17, 2004, Dr. N, a psychiatrist, noted that the applicant had been 
recalled  to  active  duty  but  was  “in  limbo”  because  he  had  been  “on  limited  duty  for 
medical  rehab  after  surg[ery]  on  both  shoulders”  for  more  than  a  year.    Dr.  N  stated 
that “it is difficult to understand what is going on with the medical dept at USCG San 
Pedro that keeps him [on] limited duty for medical problems for over a year following 
surg[ery] and no medical board has been initiated.  We will follow him since his psy-
chological well being is going down hill.  He is not fit for duty psychologically at this 
point.    He  is  in  psychotherapy.”    Dr.  N  did  not  write  a  diagnosis.    Dr.  B  wrote  on 
December  3,  2004,  that  Dr.  N’s  note  was  inaccurate  since  the  applicant’s  last  surgery 
occurred on March 4, 2004. 
 
 
On December 10, 2004, a PA tested the range of motion and strength in the appli-
cant’s shoulders.  She measured his abduction in the left shoulder as 165 degrees and in 
the right shoulder as 180 degrees and measured his strength as “4/5 [in] all directions.”  
The PA wrote that he was fit for full duty. 
 
 
On  December  15,  2004,  Dr.  B  wrote  that  the  applicant  reported  he  was  doing 
“okay” and that the medication he was taking for depression was helping.  Dr. B also 
wrote that he had consulted with Dr. K about whether the applicant should be evalu-
ated  by  a  medical  board  due  to  his  depression.    Dr.  K  told  Dr.  B  that  the  applicant 
would not need evaluation by a medical board.   
 
 
On December 16, 2004, the psychology intern reported that the applicant contin-
ued to complain of a depressed mood and anxiety.  She wrote that he “is nervous and 
worried about his future with the Coast Guard and continues to wonder why he has not 
been recommended for a medical review.  [He] is particularly concerned that a medical 
assistant at the Coast Guard deemed him ‘fit for full duty’ without asking how [he] felt.  
[He] continues his physical therapy exercises but continues to have pain and difficulty 
with simple movements and activities of daily living.”  She also noted that the applicant 
complained of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from his 
combat experience as a marine.  She wrote that the applicant “continues to meet criteria 
for Major Depressive Disorder” and that “it would be unsafe to return [him] to active 
duty  status  due  to  both  current  physical  and  psychological  limitations.”    Dr.  K  again 
concurred in the report. 
 
On December 27, 2004, the applicant’s physical therapist measured his range of 
 
motion and strength in both shoulders.  In his right shoulder, she found no limitation of 
motion and full “5/5” strength in all directions.  In his left shoulder, she measured his 

On December 29, 2004, the Coast Guard informed the applicant that he would be 

forward  elevation  as  171  degrees  and  his  abduction  as  151  degrees.    In  addition,  she 
noted that his strength in his left shoulder was either “4+/5” or “5/5” in all directions.  
She noted that the applicant was now “(–)” or negative for nerve impingement, whereas 
at his previous session on November 24, 2004, she had noted “(+) nerve impingement.” 
 
 
On December 28, 2004, the applicant sought treatment for a sebaceous cyst on his 
right arm.  Dr. B noted that the applicant told him that he “wants IMB in order to get 
advantage [with] govt contracts.”  Dr. B found the applicant fit for full duty but noted 
that  he  would  discuss  the  applicant’s  condition  with  “ortho”  because  he  was  com-
plaining of pain in his left shoulder. 
 
 
eligible for retired pay upon attaining 60 years of age on June 3, 2005. 
 
 
On January 4, 2005,  Dr. B noted that “[d]uring RELAD [physical examination], 
[the  applicant  complained  of]  occasional  [left]  hand  tingling.”    However,  there  is  no 
report of the RELAD examination in the applicant’s records.  Dr. B noted that the appli-
cant was wearing a very tight metal watchband on his left hand and advised him not to 
wear it for two to three weeks to see if the tingling would stop. 
 
 
On  January  6,  2005,  the  applicant’s  physical  therapist  wrote  that  he  had  been 
treating  the  applicant  since  October  26,  2004,  due  to  his  complaints  of  shoulder  pain.  
He wrote that the applicant had a limited range of motion in his left shoulder and com-
plained of not being able to lift heavy things or to do work overhead. 
 
 
On  January  13,  2005,  the  applicant  complained  of  occasional  numbness  and 
tremors in his left hand.  A health services technician noted that he had a full range of 
motion in his extremities and that the results of a “two point discrimination test” were 
normal.  The technician found him fit for full duty and advised him to stop wearing the 
metal watchband, which was tight enough to turn his skin red. 
 
 
due to Dr. N’s finding that he was not psychologically fit for duty. 
 
 
 

On  February  17,  2005,  the  applicant  asked  to  be  evaluated  by  a  medical  board 

On March 3, 2005, the applicant was released from active duty. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 7, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  application  “be  dis-
missed and returned to the Coast Guard so that the Coast Guard can conduct a physical 
[examination] to evaluate whether Applicant’s condition rendered him unfit for contin-

ued  service  prior  to  separation.”    The  JAG  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  failed  to 
conduct a demobilization (RELAD) physical for the applicant.   

 
The  JAG  based  his  recommendation  on  a  memorandum  on  the  case  from  the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), which the JAG adopted.  CGPC stated that 
an extensive review of the applicant’s record “found no evidence that a demobilization 
physical exam was completed prior to the Applicant’s separation and that the Applicant 
had a potentially boardable mental health diagnosis which was under treatment prior 
to separation.”  CGPC stated that because no separation physical examination was con-
ducted, the applicant “had no reasonable opportunity to object to the presumption that 
he was physically qualified for separation.”  CGPC stated that the Coast Guard should 
conduct a demobilization physical examination, which should include a mental health 
evaluation by a military psychiatrist “to evaluate the Applicant’s potentially boardable 
mental  health  diagnosis.”    CGPC  stated  that  “if  the  evaluation  determines  the  Appli-
cant’s condition rendered him unfit for continued service prior to separation, his case 
should  then  be  referred  to  an  Initial  Medical  Board  (IMB)  for  processing  through  the 
PDES.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On  October  13,  2005,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s 
advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    No  response  was 
received.   
 

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 schedule shall be discharged with severance pay.   
 
Provisions of the Personnel Manual  
 

Article  12.B.6.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  “[b]efore  retirement, 
involuntary  separation,  or  release  from  active  duty  (RELAD)  into  the  Ready  Reserve 
(selected drilling or IRR), every enlisted member, except those discharged or retired for 
physical or mental disability, shall be given a complete physical examination in accor-

dance  with  the  Medical  Manual,  COMDTINST  M6000.1  (series).  …  The  examination 
results  shall  be  recorded  on  Standard  Form  88.    To  allow  additional  time  to  process 
enlisted  members  being  discharged  for  enlistment  expiration  or  being  released  from 
active duty, the physical examination shall be given at least six months before separa-
tion  from  active  duty.    All  physical  examinations  for  separations  are  good  for  12 
months.  If the member is discharged for immediate reenlistment, the physical exami-
nation  is  not  required.    However,  before  discharge  for  immediate  reenlistment,  the 
commanding officer shall review the member’s health record and require him or her to 
undergo a physical examination if evidence in the record or personal knowledge indi-
cates a potential health problem.” 
 

Article  12.B.6.b.  states  that  “[w]hen  the  physical  examination  is  completed  and 
the  member  is  found  physically  qualified  for  separation,  the  member  will  be  advised 
and  required  to  sign  a  statement  on  the  reverse  side  of  the  Chronological  Record  of 
Service,  CG-4057,  agreeing  or  disagreeing  with  the  findings.”    Article  12.B.6.c.  states 
that “[i]f a member objects to a finding of physically qualified for separation, the Stan-
dard Form 88 together with the member’s written objections shall be sent immediately 
to Commander, (CGPC-epm-1) for review.” 
 
Provisions of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) 

 
Article 3.B.5. of the Medical Manual provides that when a member objects to a 
finding of qualified  for separation or release, CGPC will review the record to make a 
final determination as to whether he will be separated or processed under the PDES. 

 
Article 3.B.6. provides that “[w]hen a member has an impairment (in accordance 
with section 3-F of this Manual) an Initial Medical Board shall be convened only if the 
conditions listed in paragraph 2-C-2.(b) [of the PDES Manual] are also met.  Otherwise 
the member is suitable for separation.” 

 
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.   

 
Article 3.F.12.a.(2) provides that a range of motion that does not meet or exceed 
the  following  standards  when  measured  with  a  goniometer  is  normally  disqualifying 
for retention or separation.  For forward elevation (when the arm is held straight down 
and raised forward in front of the body), the range of motion must be at least 90 degrees 
(parallel to the floor).  For abduction (when the arm is held straight down and raised 
out to the side), the range of motion must be at least 90 degrees (parallel to the floor).  

 
Article 3.F.12.c.(5) provides that muscle weakness may be disqualifying if there is 
“[f]laccid paralysis of  one or more muscles,  producing loss of function that precludes 

satisfactory performance of duty following surgical correction or if not remediable by 
surgery”  or  if  there  is  “[s]pastic  paralysis  of  one  or  more  muscles  producing  loss  of 
function that precludes satisfactory performance of duty.” 

 
Article 3.F.16.c. states that a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder or “recurrent 
major depression” may be disqualifying, as well as “[a]ll other mood disorders associ-
ated  with  suicide  attempt,  untreated  substance  abuse,  requiring  hospitalization,  or 
requiring  treatment  (including  medication,  counseling,  psychological  or  psychiatric 
therapy)  for  more  than  6  months.    Prophylactic  treatment  requiring  more  than  one 
drug, or associated with significant side effects (such as sedation, dizziness or cognitive 
changes)  or  frequent  follow-up  that  limit  duty  options.    (Prophylactic  treatment  with 
medication may continue indefinitely as long as the member remains asymptomatic fol-
lowing initial therapy).”   

 
Article 3.F.1.c. of the Medical Manual states the following: 
 
Fitness  for  Duty.    Members  are  ordinarily  considered  fit  for  duty  unless  they  have  a 
physical  impairment  (or  impairments)  which  interferes  with  the  performance  of  the 
duties of their grade or rating.  A determination of fitness or unfitness depends upon the 
individual’s ability to reasonably perform those duties.  Members considered temporar-
ily or permanently unfit for duty shall be referred to an Initial Medical Board for appro-
priate disposition. 

 

Article 3.F. of the Medical Manual provides that members  with  medical  condi-
tions that are disqualifying for retention in the Service shall be referred to an IMB by 
their  commands.    Article  3.F.12.  provides  the  minimum  ranges  of  motion  that  each 
party of the body must have for retention on active duty.  Article 3.F.15.n.(1)  states that 
neuralgia  (nerve  pain)  may  be  disqualifying  when  “symptoms  are  severe,  persistent, 
and not responsive to treatment.”  Article 3.F.15.n.(2) states that neuritis (inflammation 
of  a  nerve  causing  pain  and  numbness)  may  be  disqualifying  when  “manifested  by 
more than moderate, permanent functional impairment.”   
 
Provisions of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C)  
 
Chapter 2.A.15. of the PDES Manual defines “fit for duty” as “[t]he status of a 
 
member who is physically and mentally able to perform the duties of office, grade, rank 
or rating.  This includes specialized duty such as duty involving flying or diving only if 
the performance of the specialized duty is a requirement of the member’s enlisted rat-
ing.” 
 

Chapter 2.C.2.a. provides that the “sole standard” for “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 aggra-
vated through military service.”  Chapter 2.C.2. states the following: 

 
b. 
The law that provides for disability retirement or separation (10 U.S.C., chapter 
61)  is  designed  to  compensate  members  whose  military  service  is  terminated  due  to  a 
physical disability that has rendered him or her unfit for continued duty.  That law and 
this disability evaluation system are not to be misused to bestow compensation benefits 
on those who are voluntarily or mandatorily retiring or separating and have theretofore 
drawn  pay  and  allowances,  received  promotions,  and  continued  on  unlimited  active 
duty status while tolerating physical impairments that have not actually precluded Coast 
Guard service.  The following policies apply. 
 
   (1) 
Continued performance of duty until a service member is scheduled for separa-
tion or retirement for reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fit-
ness for duty.  This presumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that: 
 
 
adequately in his or her assigned duties; or 
 
 
acute,  grave  illness  or  injury,  or  other  deterioration  of  the  member’s 
physical condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for sepa-
ration or retirement for reasons other than physical disability which rendered the service 
member unfit for further duty. 
 
    (2)  A  member  being  processed  for  separation  or  retirement  for  reasons  other  than 
physical disability shall not be referred for disability evaluation unless the conditions in 
paragraphs 2.C.2.b.(1)(a) or (b) are met. 
 
c. 
If a member being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than 
physical  disability  adequately  performed  the  duties  of  his  or  her  office,  grade,  rank  or 
rating, the member is presumed fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates he 
or she has impairments. 

the  member,  because  of  disability,  was  physically  unable  to  perform 

(a) 

(b) 

•  •  • 

An  evaluee  whose  manifest  or  latent  impairment  may  be  expected  to  interfere 
e. 
with the performance of duty in the near future may be found “unfit for continued duty” 
even  though  the  member  is  currently  physically  capable  of  performing  all  assigned 
duties.  Conversely, an evaluee convalescing from a disease or injury which reasonably 
may be expected to improve so that he or she will be able to perform the duties of his or 
her office, grade, rank, or rating in the near future may be found “Fit for Duty.” 
 
Chapter 3 provides that if a member’s fitness for continued duty is in question, 
an IMB of two medical officers shall conduct a thorough medical 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 referral to a Central Physical Eval-
uation Board (CPEB).  The member is advised about the PDES and permitted to submit 
a response to the IMB report.   
 
 
Chapter 4 provides that a CPEB shall review the IMB report, the CO’s endorse-
ment, and the member’s medical records.  Chapter 2.C.3.a.(3)(a) provides that, if a CPEB 

finds that the member is unfit for duty because of a permanent disability, it will propose 
a physical disability rating.  Chapter 4.A.14.c. provides that if the member objects to a 
CPEB finding, he may demand a formal hearing by a Formal Physical Evaluation Board 
(FPEB).    Chapter 5.C.11.a. provides that after the hearing, the FPEB shall issue findings 
and  a  recommended  disposition  of  each  case  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Chapter 2.C.3.a.  The applicant may submit a rebuttal within 15 working days, and the 
FPEB must respond and, if indicated, prepare a new report.  The FPEB’s final report is 
reviewed for sufficiency by an officer at CGPC and by the Judge Advocate General, and 
forwarded to the Chief of the Administrative Division of CGPC for final action.   
 

Chapter  2.C.10.a.(2)  provides  that  the  CPEB  or  FPEB  will  consider  a  medical 
condition  to  be  “permanent”  when  “[a]ccepted  medical  principles  indicate  the  defect 
has stabilized to the degree necessary to assess the permanent degree of severity or per-
centage rating” or if the “compensable percentage rating can reasonably be expected to 
remain unchanged for the statutory five year period that the evaluee can be compen-
sated while on the TDRL.”  Under Chapter 8, if the CPEB (or the FPEB) determines that 
a member is unfit for duty and the condition may not be permanent but is at least tem-
porarily greater than 30 percent, the member may be placed on the TDRL for a maxi-
mum of five years.  Chapter 8.A.2.  provides that the TDRL “safeguards members from 
being  permanently  retired  with  a  condition  that  is  not  stable  and  could  result  in  a 
higher disability rating.”  While on the TDRL, a member’s case is periodically reviewed 
by the CPEB to determine if his condition has stabilized so that a permanent rating may 
be assigned (or he may be found fit for duty if he recovers). 
 

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  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 

 
2. 

The applicant alleged that prior to his release from active duty on March 
3, 2005, he was unfit for duty due to a diagnosis of “Major Depressive Disorder, Recur-
rent—Severe Without Psychotic Features” and due to pain and limited ranges of motion 
in his shoulders.  He asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was placed 
on the TDRL following his release from active duty.  The Board begins each case pre-
suming that the applicant’s records are correct and that Coast Guard officials, including 
medical personnel, have acted correctly and in good faith.1  The record indicates that 
                                                 
1  33  C.F.R.  § 52.24(b).    See  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir.  1992);  Sanders  v.  United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (holding that “absent strong evidence to the contrary,” government 
officials are presumed to have acted “lawfully, correctly, and in good faith”). 

the  applicant’s  command  and  primary  physician,  Dr.  B,  considered  his  request  for  a 
medical board but did not believe that his condition warranted evaluation by a medical 
board or PDES processing.  

 
3. 

The JAG and CGPC recommended that the Board order the Coast Guard 
to conduct a physical examination of the applicant because they found no evidence that 
he  had  undergone  a  physical  examination  prior  to  his  release  from  active  duty,  as 
required by Article 12.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual.  There is no report of a RELAD 
physical  examination  in  the  applicant’s  medical  record.    However,  Dr.  B’s  note  dated 
January 4, 2005, indicates that the applicant did undergo a RELAD physical examina-
tion.  Therefore, either the report was never completed and entered in the applicant’s 
record or it was removed from his medical record. 

 
4. 

Article 3.F.12.a.(2) of the Medical Manual requires only that members be 
able to lift their arms 90 degrees, or parallel to the floor, both to the front and to the side.  
On July 19, 2004, the applicant asked Dr. B whether he could be evaluated by a medical 
board for his shoulder condition.  Dr. B noted that he explained to the applicant that his 
shoulder condition was not sufficiently severe to warrant PDES processing.  Measure-
ments of the ranges of motion in the applicant’s shoulders taken on September 30, 2004, 
December 10, 2004, and December 27, 2004, greatly exceeded these minimum require-
ments for retention and separation.  In addition, the applicant’s medical records contain 
no mention of any flaccid or spastic paralysis of his muscles that would disqualify him 
for retention or separation under Article 3.F.12.c.(5).  Although the applicant’s physical 
therapist wrote on his behalf on January 6, 2005, that the applicant had a limited range 
of motion in his left shoulder and complained of not being able to lift heavy things or to 
do  work  overhead,  the  physical  therapist’s  report  on  the  applicant’s  range  of  motion 
and strength dated December 27, 2004, indicates that the applicant‘s shoulder condition 
did not disqualify him for retention or separation.  Dr. B, who was clearly aware of the 
applicant’s  shoulder  condition,  noted  that  he  was  fit  for  duty  several  times  in  the 
months prior to his release from active duty.  Therefore, the Board finds that the appli-
cant  has  not  proved  that  his  shoulder  condition  rendered  him  unfit  for  retention  or 
separation,  in  accordance  with  the  standards  in  the  Medical  Manual,  when  he  was 
released from active duty on March 3, 2005.   

 
5. 

Beginning in September 2004, the applicant sought help for psychological 
symptoms.    A  psychology  intern  interviewed  him  on  September  22,  2004,  and  diag-
nosed him with “Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent—Severe Without Psychotic Fea-
tures.”  Dr. K reviewed the intern’s notes and concurred in her findings.  Under Article 
3.F.16.c.  of  the  Medical  Manual,  “recurrent  major  depression”  and  other  mood  disor-
ders  “associated  with  suicide  attempt,  untreated  substance  abuse,  requiring  hospitali-
zation, or requiring treatment … for more than 6 months” are normally disqualifying 
for retention or separation.  As the medical notes include no mention of a prior major 

depression,  the  basis  for  the  intern’s  finding  that  the  depression  was  recurrent  is 
unclear. 
 
6. 

On November 17, 2004, Dr. N, a psychiatrist, noted that the applicant was 
“not fit for duty psychologically at this point” but did not diagnose him.  On December 
15, 2004, Dr. B noted that Dr. K told him that the applicant would not need evaluation 
by  a  medical  board  because  of  his  mental  health.    However,  on  December  16,  2004, 
Dr. K  apparently  concurred  in  the  psychology  intern’s  conclusion  that  the  applicant 
“continues to meet criteria for Major Depressive Disorder” and that “it would be unsafe 
to  return  [him]  to  active  duty  status  due  to  both  current  physical  and  psychological 
limitations.”  Dr. B was clearly aware of the applicant’s psychological diagnosis and still 
found him fit for duty.  Given the conflicting reports of the applicant’s mental status, 
the Board finds that whether the applicant was psychologically fit for duty or unfit for 
continued service at the time of his release from active duty is unclear in the record.   

 
7. 

The applicant asked to be placed on the TDRL, which requires at least a 
30%  disability  rating.   However,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by a  preponderance of 
the  evidence  that  he  was  unfit  for  continued  service  because  of  his  mental  health  in 
accordance with the standards provided in Article 3.F.16.c. of the Medical Manual.  Nor 
has he proved that he was at least 30% disabled by major depression prior to his release 
from active duty.  Moreover, under Chapter 2.C.2.b.(1) of the PDES Manual, his contin-
ued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness for duty that the applicant has 
not overcome.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant is not entitled to placement 
on the TDRL. 

 
8. 

In the advisory opinion, the JAG and CGPC recommended that the Board 
have the Coast Guard perform a physical examination and mental health evaluation to 
determine  the  applicant’s  fitness  for  duty  since  there  is  no  report  of  a  timely  RELAD 
physical examination in his record.  In light of the absence of the report and the lack of 
clarity  in  the record  concerning  the  applicant’s  psychological  fitness  for  duty  prior  to 
his release from active duty on March 3, 2005, the Board finds that the recommended 
relief is appropriate.  

 
9. 

Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by ordering the Coast Guard 
to  conduct  expeditiously  a  physical  examination  and  mental  health  evaluation  of  the 
applicant.    If  he  is  found  to  be  currently  unfit  for  duty  due  to  a  disability  that  was 
incurred while he was serving on active duty, the Coast Guard should convene an IMB 
in accordance with the PDES Manual, COMDTINST M1850.2C.  If the applicant is eval-
uated by an IMB, and the IMB determines that he was unfit for duty on March 3, 2005, 
the Coast Guard should further process him under the PDES, and his DD 214 and other 
records should be corrected to reflect the results of that processing. 

 
 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 
 

The Coast Guard shall expeditiously conduct a physical examination and mental 
health evaluation of the applicant.  If he is found to be unfit for duty due to a physical 
or mental disability that he incurred while serving on active duty, the Coast Guard shall 
convene  an  IMB  to  evaluate  him  in  accordance  with  COMDTINST  M1850.2C.    If  the 
applicant is evaluated by an IMB, and the IMB determines that he was unfit for duty on 
March  3,  2005,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  further  process  him  under  the  PDES,  and  his 
DD 214  and  other  records  shall  be  corrected  as  necessary  to  reflect  the  results  of  that 
processing. 
 
 
any correction made to his record in accordance with this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any amount he may be due as a result of 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier