DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-125 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, SR (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 the 
case on June 22, 205, 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  May  18,  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 
discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  in  1981  by  reason  of  physical  disability.    (The 
applicant's  military  record  shows  that  he  was  discharged  under  honorable  conditions 
due to misconduct.)  The applicant also asked the Board to restore "his rate that was lost 
as a result of the lack of treatment for his head injury."  
 
 
The applicant alleged that while serving on board a cutter, he suffered a broken 
wrist and a head injury.  He stated that some of the symptoms of the head injury are bi-
polar  disorder,  confusion,  and  poor  vision.  He  stated  that  he  did  not  discover  the 
alleged  error  until  January  31,  2003,  because  a  federal  law  prevented  him  from 
obtaining  his  medical  records  due  to  earlier  suicide  attempts.    He  stated  that  he  was 
only able to get medical help in 2000, after a congressman assisted him in having some 
of his medical records released to the applicant's brother.   The applicant stated that he 
presented  those  medical  records  to  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA).    He 

further  stated  that  he  is  requesting  a  medical  discharge  so  that  he  can  obtain  proper 
medical treatment and so that he will no longer have to live in pain.  
 
 
  
 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

 

On March 11, 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  His pre-enlistment 

physical examination showed that he was in good health.    

 
A September 3, 1980 x-ray report from University of Texas hospital shows that 
the applicant "sustained a transverse fracture through the distal part of the shaft of the 
middle phalanx of the second digit of the right hand.  The fragments are not displaced." 
 

In July 1981, his CO referred him to St. Mary's Hospital for an evaluation because 
he  was  becoming  a  major  disciplinary  problem.    The  applicant  was  hospitalized  for 
evaluation  from  July  21,  1981,  until  August  17,  1981.    The  hospital  medical  report 
provided the following pertinent facts about the applicant's history: 

 
[The applicant] was referred to [Dr. S.] by his officers in the Coast Guard 
who were concerned that he was becoming a major disciplinary problem.  
The  precipitating  incident  for  this  consultation  occurred  on  the  Sunday 
prior  to  admission.    The  [applicant]  and  his  girlfriend  had  a  serious 
disagreement that the [applicant] became very angry hit his fist against a 
brick wall and then proceeded to crash his car into several street signs.  He 
was ticketed by police who also called the Coast Guard . . .  The following 
morning, as the patient was walking off the ship, he was informed by his 
officers that he was restricted to the ship.  He then jumped ship and was 
later brought back to his base officers who discussed these problems with 
him.  The [applicant] reports a similar episode on June 19, 1981, when his 
officers refused him a pass for a family reunion.  The patient left AWOL, 
given  severe  punishment  and  demoted  in  rank.    Mental  examination  on 
admission  -  in  general  the  patient  was  well  groomed,  and  appropriately 
dressed,  pleasant  and  cooperative  and  alert  during  the  interview.    His 
speech  was  quiet  but  clear.    Mood  slightly  depressed.    Affect  was 
appropriate to this situation and the patient had appropriate spontaneous 
laugh.    No  pre-occupation  observed.    The  patient  was  oriented  times 
three,  had  a  good  fund  of  general  knowledge,  good  abstraction  of 
proverbs, good recent and immediate memory and his IQ was judged to 
be average.  His insight seems only fair as he did not realize his lack of self 

discipline and self control leading to many of his problems.  His judgment 
was good.  His reliability seemed good to fair.  
  
PHYSICAL  EXAMINATION:  .  .  .  Back  exam  --  the  spine  was  without 
tenderness.    There  was  bilateral  flank  tenderness,  right  greater  than  left.  
Extremities:  Without cyanosis, clubbing or edema.  There was swelling of 
the  dorsum  of  the  right  hand  with  limited  range  of  motion  of  the  right 
wrist.   
 
LABORATORY DATA:  . . . EEG was normal.  Skull and chest x-rays were 
normal.    X-rays  of  the  right  hand  and  wrist  showed  an  old  ununited 
fracture of the carpal navicular bone.  Plain and contrast CT scans of the 
head were unremarkable.  There were no operations or procedures.   
 
FINAL DIAGNOSIS:  Situational adjustment reaction 
 

    Immature histrionic personality disorder 

 

 

 
The applicant was discharged from the hospital on August 17, 1981, with instructions 
for  a  regular  diet,  a  prescription  for  the  drug  Thorazine,  and  to  call  Dr.  S  for  an 
appointment in four weeks.   
 

On  July  30,  1981,  the  applicant's  CO  recommended  that  the  Commandant 
discharge  the  applicant  due  to  failure  to  adapt  socially  or  emotionally  to  military  life 
under  Article  12-B-9  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (CG-207).    The  CO  stated  that  the 
applicant's  failure  to  adjust  was  evidenced  by  a  series  of  UCMJ  violations  and  non-
judicial  punishments  that  had  not  succeeded  in  modifying  the  applicant's  behavior.  
The CO stated that the applicant had committed the following violations set out below. 

 
1.  On April 28, 1981, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty, a 
violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  He was punished at captain's mast with 14 days of 
extra duty.   

 
2.    On  July  2,  1981,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  captain's  mast  for  a  9-day 
unauthorized absence (UA) from June 19 - 28, 1981; a one-day UA from June 30 to July; 
and a violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ by failing to perform the extra duty ordered at 
the earlier captain's mast. 

 
3.    On  July  18,  1981,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  a  captain's  mast  for  a  one-
hour  UA.    His  punishment  consisted  of  forfeiture  of  $100  pay  per  month  for  two 
months and reduction in rate to pay grade E-1.   

 
4.  On July 27, 1981, the day the cutter was scheduled to deploy, the applicant 
was returned to the ship under escort with an injured hand and stated to a crewmember 

that he would commit suicide if required to deploy with the cutter.  Although restricted 
to the cutter, the applicant resisted the efforts of the crew to keep him on the ship, broke 
free,  and  leapt  from  the  cutter's  pier  into  the  water.    The  CO  stated  that  after  the 
applicant was coaxed back aboard the cutter, he was transferred to a shore command 
for treatment of his hand and a psychiatric evaluation while the cutter was deployed.   
The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  was  an  administrative  burden  to  the  command  and 
had not responded to discipline.  He recommended that the applicant receive a general 
discharge due to his pattern of behavior since April 1981.  

 
On  July  30,  1981,  the  applicant  acknowledged  notification  of  his  proposed 
discharge,  did  not  object  to  being  discharged,  and  waived  his  right  to  submit  a 
statement.   

 
On August 17, 1981, the Commander, First Coast Guard District, forwarded the 
CO's  recommendation  for  the  applicant's  discharge  to  the  Commandant.    The 
Commander  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  by  reason  of  misconduct 
due to his frequent involvement with military and/or civilian authorities under Article 
12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual.  The Commander wrote that the applicant had been 
an administrative burden to the command for the fifteen months that he had been in the 
Coast Guard.   

 
On  August  26,  1981,  the  Commandant  stated  that  the  applicant  should  be 
informed  that  he  was  directing  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general 
discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to  frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable 
nature  with  military  and/or  civilian  authorities.    The  Commandant  stated  that  the 
applicant should be offered the opportunity to make a new statement.   

 
On  September  2,  1981,  the  applicant  underwent  a  medical  examination  for  the 
purpose  of  discharge.    He  wrote  in  block  8.  of  the  Report  of  Medical  History  that  he 
believed  he  was  in  perfect  health.    The  doctor  found  the  applicant  qualified  for 
discharge and did not note any disqualifying conditions.   

 
On September 2, 1981, the applicant signed an entry in his medical record stating 
that he had been informed of the findings of the physical examination given to him for 
discharge, agreed with findings of the medical physician, and did not want to make a 
statement in rebuttal.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  November  8,  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 has failed to show why it is in the interest of 
justice to excuse his delay in filing an application with the Board within three years of 
his September 15, 1981, discharge from the Coast Guard.  The JAG stated that the record 
rebuts the applicant's claim that he was unable to file an application earlier because he 
could not get a copy of his medical record due to his mental condition.  In this regard, 
the  JAG  noted  that  the  applicant  asked  for  a  copy  of  his  record  on  February  1,  2000, 
which the National Archives provided on March 29, 2000.  The JAG further noted that a 
congressperson also requested the applicant's record in April 2000, which the Archives 
provided  on  April  27,  2000.    The  JAG  argued  that  the  record  does  not  support  the 
applicant's contention that his records were withheld from him.  The JAG stated that the 
applicant has failed to show good cause for the delay in filing a timely application.   
 

The  JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  has  the  burden  of  proving  that  the  Coast 
Guard committed an error or injustice in his case, which he failed to meet.  He stated 
that  absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  it  is  presumed  that  Coast  Guard  officials 
"carried out their duties lawfully, correctly, and in good faith."  Arens v. United States, 
969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (D.C.  Cir.  1990).  The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  offered  no 
evidence to show that the Coast Guard erred in the characterization of his service.  The 
JAG noted that the Coast Guard conducted a discharge physical that concluded that the 
applicant was fit for discharge, and the applicant agreed. 

 
The JAG attached a memorandum from the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel 
Command as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion and asked the board to accept it as a 
part thereof.  CGPC noted that the applicant's separation physical examination did not 
indicate any disqualifying defects and the applicant did not indicate that he believe he 
had any disqualifying conditions.  The applicant stated that he was in perfect health. 

 
CGPC concluded his comments as follows: 

 
2.    The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  due  to 
his  continuous  misconduct.    The  record  does  not  indicate  that  the 
Applicant  suffered  from  any  condition  that  would  have  prompted 
placement in the Physical Disability Evaluation System. 

 
3.    The  Applicant  has  not  provided  evidence  to  support  this 

allegation of error or injustice.   

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On February 14, 2006, the BCMR received the applicant's response to the views 
of the Coast Guard.  He stated that the statute of limitations should be waived in his 
case because he had been unable to get his medical records due to his unstable mental 

health.  He stated that a congressperson helped him obtain records relating to his wrist 
injury, but he still cannot get his mental health record.   

 
The applicant stated that he has shown that he suffered a broken wrist while in 
the Coast Guard, which the Coast Guard knew about but refused to treat.  He stated 
that  medical  records  at  N.H.D.P.  (no  explanation  for  acronym)  would  prove  that  he 
suffered a head injury that caused him to have mental disorders.  (These records were 
not provided to the Board.)  He stated that his mental disorders, which the Coast Guard 
refused to treat, were the cause of his misconduct while on active duty.    He further 
stated  that  he  was  unable  to  submit  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf  (at  the  time  of 
discharge) due to his lack of mental capacity.  The applicant concluded by saying that 
"[b]ecause  of  the  denial  of  treatment,  [lack  of]  access  to  my  medical/mental  health 
records, and my deteriorated mental state, I was unable to file in a timely manner." 
 
Supplemental Evidence 
 
 
On or about February 15, 2006, a member of the staff contacted the applicant and 
explained  that the  Board  had  obtained  the Coast  Guard  medical record that  included 
reports  from  St.  Mary's  Hospital,  but  did  not  have  any  other  medical  records.    The 
applicant  was  told  that  if  he  wanted  the  Board  to  consider  additional  medical 
information, he was responsible for sending that information to the Board, and that if 
he did so, he would need to request a sixty-day delay in the processing of his case to 
allow  the  Coast  Guard  an  opportunity  to  submit  a  supplemental  advisory  opinion,  if 
they  desired  to  do  so.    On  March  7,  2006,  the  Board  received  additional  medical 
information  from  the  applicant  along  with  his  request  for  a  sixty-day  delay  in  the 
processing of his case.   
 
 
The  DVA  issued  a  decision  dated  October  15,  2004,  granting  the  applicant  a 
service  connected  disability  for  his  wrist,  retroactive  to  January  18,  2000,  the  date  the 
DVA  received  the  applicant's  claim.    The  DVA  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering 
from  degenerative  joint  disease  of  the  right  wrist.    In  September  2000,  surgery  (right 
wrist fusion and iliac crest bone graft) was performed on the applicant's wrist. The DVA 
granted the applicant a 100% disability rating due to his convalescence from September 
through October 2000.  The DVA reduced the rating to 30% effective November 1, 2000.   
 

 A  DVA  psychiatrist  stated  in  a  report  dated  June  3,  2004,  that  based  upon  a 
review of the applicant's C-file, discharge notes from a 1981 hospitalization, and records 
from CPRS (no explanation for this acronym), there was no evidence that the applicant 
had a head injury while in the military.  The psychiatrist made the following diagnosis:  
" Axis I:  1. Bipolar disorder, mixed.  2.  Rule out mood disorder due to general medical 
condition,  this  condition  being  a  head  injury  while  in  the  Coast  Guard.    Axis  II.    No 
diagnosis.    Axis  III:    Wrist  injury  and  acid  reflux.    Axis  IV:    Problems  with  primary 
support  group  and  occupational  problems.    Axis  V:    Current  Global  Assessment  of 

On March 13, 2006, the additional information was sent to the Coast Guard for 

Functioning is 40."  The phychiatrist stated that in his opinion "[b]ased on this exam it is 
at least as likely as not that the patient's current psychiatric symptoms are caused by a 
result of his head injury while in the US Coast Guard." 
 
  
any response it desired to make.   
 
 
On April 25, 2006, the BCMR received a supplemental advisory opinion, wherein 
the JAG stated that the additional evidence from the applicant did not cause a change in 
the original advisory opinion.   
 
 
On April 25, 2006, a copy of the supplemental advisory opinion was sent to the 
applicant and he was given 15 days to submit a reply.   The applicant did not submit a 
response to the supplemental advisory opinion.    
 

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 
(COMDTINST M1850.2C)  
 
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.” 

the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System 

(PDES)  Manual 

  

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.  The  application  was  not  timely.    The  applicant  had  been  discharged  for 
approximately  twenty  years  before  he  filed  this  application  with  the  Board.    To  be 
timely, an application for correction of a military record must be submitted within three 
years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered or should have been discovered.  
See 33 CFR 52.22.   
 

3.  However, the Board may still consider the application on the merits, if it finds 
it is in the interest of justice to do so. In Allen v. Card, 799 F.  Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 
1992), the court stated that in assessing whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board "should analyze both the reasons for the delay 
and  the  potential  merits  of  the  claim  based  on  a  cursory  review."    The  court  further 
stated that "the longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, 
the more compelling the merits would need to be to justify a full review."  Id. at 164, 
165.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 
4.    The  applicant  stated  on  his  application  that  he  only  discovered  the  alleged 
error  in  2003  and  he  argued  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations  in  his  case  because  "the  law"  prevented  him  from  obtaining  his  medical 
records  due  to  his  history  of  suicide  attempts.    He  alleged  that  it  was  only  after  a 
congressman intervened on his behalf that he was able to obtain his records using his 
brother as the recipient of the records. While there is some recent evidence in the record 
that the applicant currently suffers from bipolar disorder, there is no evidence that the 
applicant suffered from a mental condition at the time of his discharge that prevented 
him  from  understanding  that  his  discharge  was  by  reason  of  misconduct  and  not  by 
reason of physical disability.  Prior to his discharge, the applicant was diagnosed with 
adjustment and personality disorders in 1981, which are not physical disabilities.  See 
12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  Chapter  2A.7.  of  the  PDES  Manual.  The  Board 
further  finds  that  the  applicant's  DD  Form  214,  a  copy  of  which  was  provided  to  the 
applicant, showed that he was discharged due to misconduct.  Therefore, the applicant 
knew or should have known the reason for his discharge at the time of his discharge in 
1981.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that a 
mental disease caused or contributed to the lengthy delay in filing his application with 
the BCMR.  
 

 5.  A cursory examination of the merits indicates that that  the  applicant  is  not 
likely  to  prevail  on  his  request  for  a  correction  of  his  record  to  show  that  he  was 
discharged  by  reason  of  physical  disability  rather  than  misconduct.  The  Coast  Guard 
medical record contains no evidence that the applicant suffered from a mental disability 
prior  to  his  discharge.    He  was  evaluated  at  St.  Mary's  Hospital  and  diagnosed  with 

situational adjustment reaction and immature histrionic personality disorder, neither of 
which  is  classified  as  a  mental  disability.    A  June  3,  2004,  DVA  medical  examination 
some twenty-three years after his discharge diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a 
bipolar disorder.  The applicant alleged, but failed to prove, that the bipolar disorder 
resulted  from  a  head  injury  incurred  while  on  active  duty.    Again,  the  x-ray  of  the 
applicant's head from  St. Mary's in 1981 shows no injury to the applicant's head. The 
DVA psychiatrist's opinion that based on his examination it is at least as likely as not 
that  the  applicant's  current  psychiatric  symptoms  are  caused  by  a  result  of  his  head 
injury  while  in  the  Coast  Guard  is  not  persuasive,  particularly  since  the  DVA 
psychiatrist also stated in the same report that none of the records he reviewed showed 
that the applicant suffered a head injury while in the Coast Guard.  

 
6.    With  respect  to  the  wrist  injury,  there  is  evidence  in  the  record  that  x-rays 
taken on September 3, 1980, showed the applicant suffered a fracture of the second digit 
of  the  right  hand.    Approximately,  one  year  later,  while  at  St.  Mary's  Hospital  for 
evaluation in July 1981, x-rays of the right hand and wrist were taken and showed that 
the applicant had an old ununited fracture of the carpal navicular bone (in the wrist). 
However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  old  united  fracture  was  related  to  the  earlier 
1980 fracture of the applicant's finger.  The medical report from St. Mary's noted that 
the applicant had hit a wall with his fists after an argument with his girlfriend and then 
drove  his  car  into  several  street  signs.  The  CO  noted  that  when  the  applicant  was 
returned to the ship under police escort on July 27, 1981, he had possibly fractured his 
hand  and/or  wrist.    Therefore,  a  legitimate  question  exists  whether  the  applicant 
aggravated  whatever  injury  existed  to  his  wrist  through  his  own  misconduct.    In 
addition  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  from  the  time  of  the  applicant's 
discharge from the Coast Guard in 1981 until 2000 that he was treated for any problems 
with his wrist.  The record shows that the applicant did not file a claim with the DVA 
until  August  12,  1999,  claiming  service  connection  for  a  wrist  injury.    The  DVA 
performed  surgery  on  the  applicant's  wrist  in  September  2000.    However,  the  Board 
finds that the treatment for the applicant's wrist nineteen years after his discharge from 
the Coast Guard is insufficient to prove that the applicant suffered from an injury to his 
wrist that caused him to be unfit to perform the duties of his rate while in the Service.  
Chapter 2.C.2.a. states 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  aggravated 
through military service." 
 

7.  Moreover, Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual permits the Coast Guard to 
involuntarily  separate  a  member  for  misconduct.  There  was  nothing  improper  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  Coast  Guard  discharged  the  applicant.    In  addition,  even  if  the 
applicant  had  demonstrated  that  he  suffered  from  a  disability  that  caused  him  to  be 
unfit  at  the  time  of  his  discharge,  which  he  failed  to  do,  the  Board  finds  that  the 
discharge was still proper.  The Board is not aware of any provision of the Personnel 

Manual that requires the Coast Guard to process a member through the PDES who is 
being  involuntarily  discharged  due  to  misconduct,  and  the  applicant  has  pointed  to 
none.   The record does not corroborate the applicant's argument that his head injury 
caused  his  misconduct.    As  stated  above  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the 
applicant suffered from any head injury while on active duty or that he suffered from 
any mental disability while on active duty.  
 

8.  The fact that the DVA granted the applicant a service-connected disability for 
a  wrist  injury  some  twenty  years  after  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  is  not 
persuasive evidence that the applicant's discharge for misconduct was improper or that 
the  applicant  had  an  unfitting  condition  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.  This  Board  has 
consistently held that a disability rating from the DVA does not of itself establish that 
the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  not  assigning  the  applicant  a 
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. 
  Accordingly,  Veterans' 
Administration  ratings  are  not  determinative  of  issues  involved  in  military  disability 
retirement cases." 

[Citation  omitted.] 

 
9.  Accordingly, due the length of the delay, the lack of a persuasive reason for 
not filing his application sooner, and the lack of probable success on the merits of his 
claim, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the untimiliness in 
this case. The application is denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

military record is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 

 
 
 Steven J. Pecinovsky 

 

 

 
 Richard Walter