DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-006 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  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  October  21,  2005,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed 
application and military and medical records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  9,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant,  who  was  discharged  on  March  10,  2005,  due  to  “Alcohol 
Rehabilitation  Failure,”  asked  the  Board  to  reinstate  him  on  active  duty  and 
order  the  Coast  Guard  to  process  him  properly  under  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation System (PDES).1  He also asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment 
code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist). 

 
The applicant alleged that at the time of his discharge he was not medical-
ly fit for duty because he had recently undergone surgery on a bicep tear in his 
right  shoulder  and  was  still  in  pain.    He  was  not  allowed  to  remain  on  active 
duty  until  he  could  complete  physical  therapy.    Just  one  week  before  his 
discharge, his physical therapist instructed him not to use his arm for at least six 
                                                 
1  In the alternative, the applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that a Notice of 
Eligibility  (NOE)  for  incapacitation  pay  was  issued  upon  his  separation.    However,  only 
reservists can be eligible for incapacitation pay, and the applicant was  not a reservist.  Reserve 
Policy Manual, Art. 6.B.3. 

weeks and told him that his recovery period would last from six to eight months.  
The  applicant  stated  that  he  still  has  pain  and  limited  motion  in  his  right 
shoulder  and  cannot  lift  heavy  objects.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  has  not 
been able to receive treatment from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) 
because his condition is low priority. 

 
The applicant alleged that, despite his alcohol incidents, the Coast Guard 
was required to retain him on active duty until he was fit for full duty or process 
him under the PDES.  The applicant alleged that when his XO told him he was 
going  to  be  discharged  in  November  2004,  he  strenuously  objected  and  did 
everything he could, including having his congressman intervene on his behalf, 
to  be  retained  on  active  duty  or  get  PDES  processing.    Although  his  discharge 
was delayed until after his surgery, he was still unable to use his right arm when 
his command discharged him.2  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On  June  11,  2002,  at  the  age  of  17,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast 
Guard.  On March 17, 2003, the applicant was disenrolled from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
“A”  School  “due  to  failure  to  follow/comply  with  rules  and  regulations  and 
failure  to  follow  the  FT  ‘A’  school  testing  policy.”    An  administrative  entry 
(“Page  7”)  in  his  record  states  that  there  had  been  “two  negative  reports  for 
showing disrespect to senior personnel” and that the applicant “was found to be 
untrustworthy by lying to his instructors about completing 16 lessons, 7 of which 
he did not attempt to start.”  In addition, a Student Evaluation Board had con-
cluded that the applicant “cheated by repeatedly retaking four previously failed 
computer based exams and not reporting the exam failures to his instructor.” 

 
On November 3, 2003, the applicant and other members of his unit under-
went S.A.F.E. Alcohol Awareness Training concerning the Coast Guard’s policies 
about alcohol. 

 
On November 13, 2003, the applicant was found in a “stuporous, confused 
state.”    He  admitted  to  having  consumed  an  unidentified  drug  offered  by  a 
friend, which he thought might alleviate some pain he had in his right shoulder.  
Investigation  revealed  that  it  was  a  prescribed  drug,  Zantac.    The  Officer  in 
Charge decided that “[b]ased on unintentional use, this situation will not be con-

                                                 
2    The  applicant  also  alleged  that  he  should  have  had  a  hearing  before  an  Administrative  Dis-
charge Board (ADB).  However, only members with more than eight years of service are entitled 
to a hearing before an ADB, and the applicant had only two years and nine months of active duty 
on the date of his discharge.  Personnel Manual, Art. 12.B.16.i. 

sidered a drug incident, but will be revisited in the event of another occurrence 
of this type.”  

 
On  May  14,  2004,  while  attending  xxxxxxxxxxxxx  “A”  School,  the 
applicant  was  stopped  by  military  police  and  found  to  be  driving  under  the 
influence (DUI) of alcohol.  His command charged him with failing to obey an 
order for drinking alcohol while underage (19 years old).  In addition, an inquiry 
revealed that he had used someone else’s identification to obtain alcohol on May 
13, 2004, and on a prior occasion; that he had lied to the police about having been 
an  MP  (military  police  officer);  and  that  contrary  to  orders,  he  did  not  have  a 
valid Coast Guard decal on his vehicle.  The investigating officer stated that the 
applicant had  

 
a  long  history  of  disrespect  for  authority  and  lack  of  integrity.    He  is  severely 
lacking in the Coast Guard’s core values of respect and honor. … [H]is extensive 
lack of integrity and flagrant lying is a liability to his service in the Coast Guard, 
brings discredit to the Coast Guard. … [He] was on several occasions disrespect-
ful to his class leader, which created friction within the class.  [He] was known 
for fabricating stories about himself.  One example of his stories is he told people 
he  was  on  the  swim  team  at  the  University  of  xxxxxxxx.  …  It  is  in  the  Coast 
Guard’s  best  interest  to  process  him  for  unsuitability  for  service.    [He]  has 
already been given numerous chances to succeed. … [The XPO at his prior unit 
stated  that  the  applicant]  had  been  a  challenge  to  motivate  and  had  a  problem 
with being honest. 
 
The applicant was again disenrolled from “A” school.  On May 24, 2004, 
he underwent screening by a medical officer with the U.S. Public Health Service.  
Pursuant  to  the  screening,  the  applicant  completed  both  psychological  and 
alcohol-use related questionnaires with hundreds of questions.  In his responses, 
the applicant claimed that he never planned on drinking; he never drank enough 
to get drunk; he never drank more than he had intended to; he never drank until 
the alcohol was gone; he had drunk at most 4 or 5 beers at one time; he had never 
been criticized for drinking; he never felt guilty or bad about drinking; he had 
never  felt  hung  over  or  shaky  because  of  alcohol;  he  did  not  drink  on  a  daily 
basis;  he  had  previously  not  drunk  alcohol  for  six  to  eight  months;  he  never 
failed  to  remember  events  because  of  drinking;  he  never  felt  depressed  when 
drinking; he never lost control while drinking; he never hurt himself or anyone 
else while drinking; he did not need to drink more than he used to in order to 
feel the same effects; and he never hid his alcohol use from others.  The applicant 
admitted  only  to  infrequent  consumption  of  a  few  beers.    The  medical  officer 
who  scored  the  applicant’s  written  responses  according  to  the  test  instructions 
concluded that the applicant did “not meet the diagnostic criteria for Substance 
Abuse  or  Substance  Dependence”  but  still  referred  the  applicant  for  IMPACT 
training. 

 

On  May  27,  2004,  the Executive  Officer  (XO)  of  the  applicant’s  unit  pre-
pared a Page 7 reporting the results of the screening.  The XO also counseled the 
applicant  about  his  poor  judgment  and  about  “policies  concerning  alcohol 
use/abuse  and  the  serious  nature  of  this  incident.”  The  XO  ordered  him  to 
abstain from consuming alcohol until attaining the age of 21.  In addition, the XO 
advised the applicant  that the DUI constituted his first “alcohol incident”3 and 
that any further alcohol incidents might cause him to be discharged.  

 
On June 9, 2004, having waived his right to confer with counsel about the 
charges against him, the applicant was taken to mast on and given a punishment 
of 14 days restriction to base, which was suspended for six months, and reduc-
tion in grade, which was not suspended.  

 
On August 2, 2004, police were called to an address where the applicant 
was found to be intoxicated and non-cooperative.  On August 12, 2004, he was 
referred  to  his  unit’s  Command  Drug  and  Alcohol  Representative  (CDAR)  for 
evaluation.  The CDAR referred him for further screening.  Also on August 12, 
2004,  the  XO  advised  the  applicant  in  writing  that  the  events  of  August  2 
constituted  his  second  alcohol  incident  and  that  he  would  be  administratively 
discharged in accordance with Article 20 of the Personnel Manual.4 

 
On August 25, 2004, the applicant underwent screening under the Army 
Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  He admitted to the medical officer that when 
he was 16 and 17 years old he drank six 12-ounce beers each Friday and Saturday 
night; that at age 18, he drank about twelve 12-ounce beers each week; and that 
at age 19, he drank between twelve and eighteen 12-ounce beers once or twice a 
week.  On August 2, 2004, he had drunk eighteen 12-ounce beers.  The applicant 
was  found  to  be  “alcohol  dependent”  and  referred  for  rehabilitative  treatment 
under the ADAPT program and Intensive Short Term Outpatient Program.  On 
August 27, 2004, he was counseled about this matter and agreed to attend both 
programs. 

 
On  September  22,  2004,  the  applicant  sought  treatment  for  pain  in  his 
right  shoulder.    The  doctor  diagnosed  it  and  prescribed  treatment  for  it  as  a 
sprain, but also ordered x-rays and an MRI. 
                                                 
3 Article 20.A.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual defines an “alcohol incident” as “[a]ny behavior, in 
which alcohol is determined, by the commanding officer, to be a significant or causative factor, 
that results in the member's loss of ability to perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon the 
Uniformed Services,  or is  a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,  Federal, State, or 
local  laws.  The  member  need  not  be  found  guilty  at  court-martial,  in  a  civilian  court,  or  be 
awarded  non-judicial  punishment  for  the  behavior  to  be  considered  an  alcohol  incident.”  
Underage drinking therefore constitutes an “alcohol incident” because it is illegal. 
4  Article 20.B.2.h.2. of the Personnel Manual states that “[e]nlisted members involved in a second 
alcohol incident will normally be processed for separation in accordance with Article 12.B.16.”  

 
On  October  25,  2004,  the  Director  of  ASAP  reported  the  following  con-

cerning the applicant’s failure to complete rehabilitative treatment: 

 
On September 21, 2004, [the applicant] attended the first 6 hours of the 12-hour 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Treatment (ADAPT) equivalent to Alcohol 
and  Drug  Information  School  (ADIS).    He  provided  a  fax  to  confirm  having 
received medical treatment on September 22, 2004, for an injured shoulder.  He is 
rescheduled to attend the second six hours of ADAPT on November 24, 2004, but 
ADIS  is  also  available  through  civilian  programs  if  he  is  discharged  prior  to 
attending  the  second  day  of  ADAPT.    [He]  also  attended  9  days  of  the  12-day 
Intensive Short-Term Outpatient Program (ISTOP) from October 12-22, 2004.  He 
was  released  from  ISTOP  and  ASAP  at  1100  hours  on  October  25,  2004,  and 
directed to return immediately to his unit due to his having exceeded by three-
and-one-half  hours  the  two-hour  excused  absence  policy  of  ISTOP  (4  hours  on 
October 18, 2004, due to mechanical breakdown and 1 1/4 hours on October 25, 
2004,  due  to  late  departure  to  return  to  [ADAPT])  and  due  to  lack  of  focused 
motivation  while  in  treatment.    Extenuating  personal  emotional  issues  were 
considered  during  the  decision  process  to  release  him  from  the  ISTOP,  and  on 
October 22, 2004, Dr. [T] had advised [the applicant] that further tardiness would 
result  in  dismissal  from  the  program.    [The  applicant’s]  progress  in  treatment 
was  fair  with  maximum  benefit  gained  at  this  time.    Prognosis  is  considered 
guarded. 
 
On  October  27,  2004,  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC) 
ordered  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  by  November  24,  2004,  by  reason  of 
alcohol  rehabilitation  failure.    The  orders  stated  that  in  “accordance  with 
COMDTINST M1900.4D, block 28 [on the applicant’s DD 214] shall only indicate 
the narrative reason unsuitability.” 

 
On  October  28,  2004,  the  applicant  was  again  screened  and  found  to  be 

alcohol dependent.  He was referred for additional treatment.   

 
On  October  29,  2004,  the  applicant’s  physician,  Dr.  R,  noted  that  he 
complained of having had pain in his right shoulder for about one year.  Dr. R 
diagnosed  a  suspected  biceps  tear  and  referred  the  applicant  to  an  orthopedic 
surgeon. 

 
On November 2, 2004, the XO entered a Page 7 in the applicant’s record 
documenting the screening and referral on October 28, 2004, and the applicant’s 
refusal to complete the prescribed rehabilitative treatment.  The XO advised the 
applicant that he would be processed for discharge.   

 
On November 22, 2004, the applicant wrote to his congressman about the 
Coast  Guard’s  intention  to  discharge  him.    The  applicant  argued  that  he  was 

entitled to remain on active duty until he was fit for duty under Articles 12.B.6.d. 
and 12.B.11.f. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
On November 23, 3004, the applicant’s physician noted that the applicant 

was scheduled to undergo surgery on a torn biceps tendon in his right arm. 

 
On November 24, 2004, the applicant underwent a physical examination 
pursuant to his pending administrative discharge.  Dr. R measured the range of 
motion in the applicant’s right shoulder as “abduction to 110 degrees; ext[ernal] 
rot[ation]  at  90  degrees;  ABD  –  100  degrees.”    In  his  notes,  Dr.  R  noted  that 
because of the injury to his right shoulder, the applicant was fit for limited duty 
(FFLD).  However, on a handwritten Report of Medical Examination, Dr. R indi-
cated  that  the  applicant  found  “fit  for  service  per  EPM,”  meaning  the  Enlisted 
Personnel Management Division of CGPC.   

 
On November 28, 2004, Dr. O, an orthopedic surgeon, reported the results 
of his examination of the applicant on November 22, 2004, in a letter to Dr. R.  He 
reported  that  the  applicant  had  “symmetric  range  of  shoulder  motion  of  150 
degrees elevation, 50 degrees external rotation, and internal rotation to T10.”  Dr. 
O  diagnosed  him  with  a  “superior  labral  anterior  posterior  lesion  of  the  right 
shoulder.”  Dr. O recommended surgery. 

 
On November 30, 2004, after the report was typed up, Dr. R indicated that 

the applicant was “fit for discharge.”  The applicant objected to that finding. 

 
On  December  3,  2004,  the  applicant  was  counseled  on  a  Page  7  about 
“discreditable  involvement  with  civil  or  military  authorities”  and  his  involve-
ment in an assault on another Coast Guard member and harboring a 14-year-old 
runaway girl at his home. 

 
On December 6, 2004, CGPC ordered that the applicant be discharged by 
February 24, 2005, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The orders stated 
that  in  “accordance  with  COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  block  28  [on  the  applicant’s 
DD 214] shall only indicate the narrative reason unsuitability.” 

 
On  December  14,  2004,  the  applicant  sought  help  for  shoulder  pain  and 

sleeplessness.  Dr. R prescribed Ambien and Percocet. 

 
On January 25, 2005, the applicant underwent arthroscopic surgery on his 
right  shoulder  for  an  “anterior  labral  repair  and  …  debridement.”    Following 
surgery, he was prescribed Percocet and Vicodin for pain control. 

 

At  a  follow-up  appointment  on  February  8,  2005,  the  applicant  reported 
that  he  was  doing  well  and  wanted  to  stop  taking  Percocet  and  decrease  his 
dosage of Vicodin.  

 
On February 10, 2005, Dr. R saw the applicant and reported that he was fit 
for  limited  duty  for  one  month,  could  return  to  desk  work,  and  would  have  a 
follow-up with the surgeon, Dr. O, in a month.  The applicant’s command asked 
CGPC  to  delay  the  applicant’s  discharge  until  March  16,  2005.    The  command 
reported that the surgery was complete but that he had a follow-up appointment 
in March to determine his fitness for duty. 

 
On  February  11,  2005,  the  Coast  Guard  issued  orders  to  discharge  the 
applicant  by  March  16,  2005.  The  orders  again  stated  that  in  “accordance  with 
COMDTINST M1900.4D, block 28 [on his DD 214] shall only indicate the narra-
tive reason unsuitability.” 

 
On  February  23,  2005,  Dr.  O,  the  surgeon,  noted  that  the  applicant’s 

“postop, rehab time is approx. 3-6 months from surgery.” 

 
On February 25, 2005, the applicant was referred for a mental health eval-
uation because a Coast Guard Employee Assistance counselor thought he might 
harm himself.  A psychologist noted that the applicant was under a great deal of 
stress and diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder. 

 
On  March  3,  2005,  the  applicant  had  a  follow-up  appointment  with  an 
orthopedic  specialist  who  worked  with  Dr.  O.    The  specialist  wrote  that  the 
applicant 

 
states that he is doing very well.  He has no pain in his shoulder.  He is using no 
pain medications.  He has been doing his pendulum dangles for the last 4 weeks 
with good results. …  His surgical incisions are all well healed.  On passive range 
of motion, he has forward raise to 140 degrees, has internal rotation to about L1, 
and  external  rotation  about  30  degrees.    All  in  all,  his  passive  range  of  motion 
seems to be very good.  He is nontender … [He] is progressing well status post 
right shoulder arthroscopic anterior labral repair.  
 
The  othopedic  specialist  stated  that  the  applicant  could  return  to  desk 
work  but  should  continue  with  more  passive  range  of  motion  exercises  and 
would be reassessed in four weeks, when he would start active range of motion 
exercises and general strengthening.  She wrote that in the meantime, he “is not 
to use his right shoulder and no overhead activities and basically, no active use 
of his arm for another six weeks.  His estimated time to recovery is somewhere 
around 6 to 8 months for healing.” 

 

On March 7, 2005, the applicant sought pain medication from his psycho-
logist, who wrote that the applicant “described [the pain] as a constant nagging 
pain, rated at a 7 on 1-10 scale.  [He] denies any numbness or decreased sens/ 
strength in right arm.”  The doctor prescribed Vicodin, Motrin, and Flexeril. 

 
On  March  10,  2005,  the  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  from 
the  Coast  Guard  with  a  JPD  separation  code,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and 
“Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” as the narrative reason for discharge in block 28 
on his DD 214. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  March  9,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  this 
case.  In so doing, he adopted the facts and analysis provided in a memorandum 
on the case by CGPC. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  “followed  established  procedures 
when discharging the Applicant for alcohol rehabilitation failure and there was 
no injustice or procedural error.”  The applicant “was processed for separation … 
due  to  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure  resulting  from  two  alcohol  incidents  and 
additionally supported by the Applicant’s failure to complete a required alcohol 
rehabilitation  program.”    Because  the  applicant  incurred  a  shoulder  injury  and 
objected  to  the  findings  of  his  separation  physical,  his  discharge  was  delayed 
from November 24, 2004, to March 10, 2005, “to allow for medical treatment and 
recovery  of  [his]  right  shoulder  injury  indicated  in  his  separation  physical  … 
even  though  at  the  time  of  his  physical  examination,  his  impairment  was  not 
disqualifying  for  retention/separation.”    CGPC  alleged  the  range  of  motion  in 
the  applicant’s  shoulder  on  November  24,  2004,  was  “within  the  established 
retention standards of the Medical Manual.”   
 

Moreover, CGPC argued, the “concept of fitness for separation is based on 
a  member’s  projected  return  to  fit  for  full  duty  status.    If  a  member  can  be 
reasonably  expected  to  return  to  fit  for  full  duty  status,  then  the  member  is 
considered fit for separation.  The member is not required to be fit for full duty.”  
CGPC alleged that “[t]here is no requirement within Coast Guard policy to keep 
a  service  member  on  active  duty  for  post-operative  recuperation  and/or 
rehabilitation.  Members who are discharged are referred to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for follow-on medical care.” 
 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  upgraded  reenlistment  code, 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the applicant  failed  to  submit  any  evidence  to  show  that the 
assigned  RE-4  was  unjust.    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  record  “clearly 

reveals patterns that could have lead to discharge form misconduct and a lesser 
character  of  service.”    CGPC  stated  that  RE-4  is  the  only  reenlistment  code 
authorized for members discharged because of alcohol rehabilitation failure.    
 
 
for medical care, the applicant should appeal the determination with the DVA. 

CGPC stated that if the DVA has actually denied the applicant’s request 

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 6, 2006, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion did not address 
his  three  main  points:    (1)  The  Coast  Guard  failed  to  “afford  [him]  a  proper 
environment  in  order to  ensure  the  success  of  [his]  alcohol  rehabilitation  treat-
ment.”5  (2) He was entitled to an Administrative Discharge Board.6  (3) He was 
entitled to be retained until he was fit for full duty or to be processed under the 
PDES. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  “dropped”  from  rehabilitation  treat-
ment “[b]ecause of the pain [he] was in and the amount of drugs [he] was given.”  
He alleged that at the time of his separation physical examination, his shoulder 
condition was disqualifying because it required surgery and, just the day before, 
Dr. O measured his range of motion to be significantly less than did Dr. R.  He 
repeated  his  allegation  that  he  was  in  pain  and  unfit  for  duty  when  he  was 
discharged. 
 
 
The  applicant  also  argued  that  block  28  on  his  DD  214  should  not  say 
“Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” because all of CGPC’s orders clearly stated that 
block 28 should only say “Unsuitability.” 
 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Article  12.B.16.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (PM)  authorizes  the  Com-
mander  of  CGPC  to  discharge  members  for  unsuitability  by  reason  of  alcohol 
abuse in accordance with Article 20.B.  PM Article 12.B.16.d. states that when a 
member  is  being  discharged  for  unsuitability,  “commanding  officers  shall:    1. 
Advise  the  member  in  writing,  using  the  letter  and  endorsement  described  in 
                                                 
5  This  point/allegation  does  not  actually  appear  in  the  applicant’s  original  application.    More-
over, following the applicant’s second alcohol incident, the Coast Guard was entitled to discharge 
him  almost  immediately,  without  waiting  to  provide  him  rehabilitation  treatment.    Under 
Articles 20.B.2.h.2. and 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual, following a second alcohol incident, a 
command  is  required  only  to  notify  the  member  of  the  pending  discharge  and  to  give  him  an 
opportunity to object in writing before awarding the member an honorable discharge. 
6 See footnote 2, above. 

Article  12.B.9.,  to  inform  the  member  of  the  reason(s)  he  or  she  is  being 
considered for discharge. Specifically state one or more of the reasons listed in 
Article  12.B.16.b.    2.  Afford  the  member  the  opportunity  to  make  a  written 
statement on his or her own behalf. … 3. Afford the member an opportunity to 
consult with a lawyer … if the member’s character of service warrants a general 
discharge.”   
 

PM  Article  12.B.16.h.  states  that  a  “member  under  consideration  for 
discharge  for  unsuitability  must  have  a  physical  examination  performed  by  a 
Public Health Service  or Armed Forces medical officer in order to identify and 
record any physical or mental impairments that the member may have. If one is 
not  available  locally,  a  contract  physician  may  perform  the  exam.  …  [T]he 
medical  officer  will  submit  a  narrative  summary  on  DD-2808  and  DD-2807-1 
describing the essential points of the member’s mental and physical condition.”  
Paragraph  3.  of  this  provision  states  that  "[I]f  it  appears  a  mental  or  physical 
disability causes the unsuitability, a medical board will be requested." 
 
 
PM  Article  12.B.6.a.  states  that  “[b]efore  retirement,  involuntary  separa-
tion,  or  release  from  active  duty  …,  every  enlisted  member,  except  those 
discharged or retired for physical or mental disability, shall be given a complete 
physical  examination  in  accordance  with  the  Medical  Manual,  COMDTINST 
M6000.1  (series).  …  All  physical  examinations  for  separations  are  good  for  12 
months.”  PM Article 12.B.6.d. states the following: 

 
When  the  examination  for  separation  finds  disqualifying  physical  or  mental 
impairments, use the following procedures: 
1.  If  the  member  desires  to  reenlist  and  the  physical  or  mental  impairment  is 
permanent, send Standard Form 88 directly to Commander, (CGPC-epm-1), with 
a request for waiver or such other recommendations as are indicated. 
2.  If  the  member  desires  to  reenlist  and  the  physical  or  mental  impairment  is 
temporary, the  necessary treatment shall be provided and the member remains 
in service under Article 12.B.11.f. 
3.  If  the  member  …  is  being  discharged  for  reasons  other  than  enlistment 
expiration and the physical or mental impairment is permanent, a medical board 
is convened under Chapter 17 and the member remains in service under Article 
12.B.11.i. 
4. If the member … is being discharged for other than enlistment expiration and 
the disability is temporary, the member may consent to remain in service under 
Article  12.B.11.f.  so  necessary  treatment  may  be  given  and  a  medical  board 
convened if indicated.  
 
Article 12.B.6.c. states that, if a member is found physically qualified for 
separation  and  objects  to  that  finding,  “Form  88  together  with  the  member’s 
written objections shall be sent immediately to Commander, (CGPC-epm-1) for 
review.  If necessary the member may remain in service beyond the enlistment 
expiration date under Article 12.B.11.i. authority.” 

 

 

 

 

PM Article 12.B.11.f.1.a. states that 

[a]n active duty member whose enlistment expires while he or she suffers from a 
disease or injury … and who needs medical care or hospitalization may remain 
in the Service after the normal enlistment expiration date with his or her consent. 
…  He  or  she  may  remain  until  recovered  to  the  point  he  or  she  meets  the 
physical  requirements  for  separation  or  reenlistment  or  a  medical  board  ascer-
tains  the  disease  or  injury  is  of  a  character  that  prevents  recovery  to  such  an 
extent.  [Emphasis added.] 

PM Article 12.B.1.e.1., “Cases Involving Concurrent Disability Evaluation 

and Disciplinary Action,” states the following: 
 

Disability  statutes  do  not  preclude  disciplinary  separation.  The  separations 
described  here  supersede  disability  separation  or  retirement.    If  Commander, 
(CGPC-adm)  is  processing  a  member  for  disability  while  simultaneously  Com-
mander, (CGPC-epm-1) is evaluating him or her for an involuntary administra-
tive  separation  for  misconduct  …  ,  Commander,  (CGPC-adm)  suspends  the 
disability evaluation and Commander, (CGPC-epm-1) considers the disciplinary 
action.  If the action taken does not include punitive or administrative discharge 
for  misconduct,  Commander,  (CGPC-adm)  sends  or  returns  the  case  to  Com-
mander, (CGPC-adm) for processing.  If the action includes either a punitive or 
administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report shall be filed 
in the terminated member's medical personnel data record (MED PDR). 

 

Article  3.F.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  provides  that  members 
with  medical  conditions  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  in  the  shoulder  that 
does not meet or exceed the following standards when measured with a gonio-
meter is normally disqualifying for retention or separation.  For forward eleva-
tion  (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 2.C.2.e. of the PDES Manual states that “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.’”  
 

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 applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

Under  Articles  20.B.2.h.2.  and  12.B.16.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual, 
following his second alcohol incident, the applicant could have been discharged 
expeditiously with an honorable discharge as long as his command notified him 
of the pending discharge and gave him an opportunity to object in writing.  The 
applicant  has  admitted,  and  the  record  indicates,  that  he  was  notified  of  his 
command’s  intent  to  discharge  him  and  that  he  in  fact  objected  in  writing  to 
being  discharged.7    Under  the  regulations,  the  applicant  was  not  entitled  to 
counsel or even to complete rehabilitative treatment prior to being discharged as 
a result of his second alcohol incident.  Nor was he entitled to an Administrative 
Discharge  Board  since  he  had  not  completed  eight  years  of  military  service. 
Personnel Manual, Art. 12.B.16.i. 

 
3. 

The  record  indicates  the  applicant’s  command  did  not  rush  his 
pending discharge but instead provided rehabilitative treatment at ASAP.  How-
ever, the applicant was dropped from the program due to unsatisfactory partici-
pation  and  on  November  2,  2004,  refused  to  return  for  further  treatment.8  
Although the applicant alleged that his unsatisfactory participation was due to 
his pain and medications, this allegation is not supported by the written explana-
tion provided by the Director of ASAP on October 25, 2004.  CGPC issued orders 
to discharge the applicant on November 24, 2004. 

 
4. 

While still enrolled at ASAP in September 2004, the applicant suf-
fered increased pain in his right shoulder.  The cause was eventually diagnosed 
as a biceps tear and Dr. O, an orthopedic surgeon, recommended surgery.  On 
November  24,  2004,  at  the  applicant’s  separation  physical  examination,  Dr.  R 
found the applicant fit for separation based in part on his measurements of the 
range  of  motion  in  the  applicant’s  right  shoulder.    Article  3.F.12.a.(2)  of  the 
Medical Manual requires only that a member be able to raise his extended arm 
parallel to the floor to the front and the side.  Although the applicant argued that 
Dr. O’s measurements disproved those of Dr. R, the Board finds Dr. R’s measure-
                                                 
7  Although the command’s written notification and the applicant’s response are not in his record, 
the  applicant  admitted  to  being  notified  of  the  pending  discharge,  and  at  least  one  written 
objection was received by CGPC through the applicant’s congressman. 
8  Under  Article  12.B.18.b.13.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant’s  refusal  to  accept  recom-
mended  medical  treatment  constituted  misconduct  and  was  therefore  an  additional  potential 
basis for discharging him. 

ments on November 24, 2004, to be unequivocal:  on the day of the separation 
physical, the applicant could raise his right arm at least parallel to the floor to the 
front and to the side.  Neither Dr. O’s measurements on November 22, 2004, nor 
the fact that the applicant needed surgery disproves this finding by Dr. R. 

 
5. 

Although the applicant was found fit for duty/discharge, the Coast 
Guard  retained  him  on  active  duty  beyond  November  24,  2004—despite  his 
second  alcohol  incident,  alcohol  rehabilitation  failure,  and  refusal  to  undergo 
more  rehabilitative  treatment—so  that  he  could  undergo  surgery  on  his  right 
shoulder.  Two weeks later, the applicant was counseled about further miscon-
duct, or “discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities,” due to his 
involvement  in  an  assault  on  a  fellow  member  and  in  harboring  a  14-year-old 
runaway girl at his residence. 

 
6. 

The  applicant  alleged  that,  despite  his  two  alcohol  incidents— 
illegal  consumption  while  underage  and  DUI—and  other  misconduct,  he  was 
entitled to be retained on active duty following his surgery until he was fit for 
duty  or  until  he  was  evaluated  by  a  medical  board  and  processed  under  the 
PDES.    Under  Article  12.B.1.e.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  however,  a  member 
who has committed misconduct may be administratively discharged despite any 
disability and is not entitled to PDES processing.  The articles of the Personnel 
Manual cited by the applicant refer primarily to members who are scheduled for 
discharge  because  their  enlistments  are  ending,  which  was  not  the  applicant’s 
situation.  In addition, Article 12.B.16.h.3. of the Personality Manual suggests that 
for  those  members  being  separated  due  to  unsuitability,  a  medical  board  is 
convened  if  it  appears  that  a  mental  or  physical  disability  causes  the 
unsuitability.    There  is  no  evidence  in  this  case  that  a  mental  or  physical 
disability  caused  the  applicant's  unsuitability  (alcohol  abuse)  for which  he  was 
discharged. 
 

7. 

CGPC  extended  the  applicant’s  discharge  date  several  times  to 
allow  for  treatment  of  his  shoulder  condition  at  Government  expense.    Dr.  O 
reported no problems following the applicant’s surgery on January 25, 2005, and 
on  February  23,  2005,  predicted  that  his  rehabilitation  would  take  three  to  six 
months from the date of surgery.  On February 8, 2005, the applicant voluntarily 
decreased his prescriptions for pain medication.  On March 3, 2005, the applicant 
reported to an orthopedic specialist working at the same hospital as Dr. O that he 
was doing very well and had no pain in his shoulder.  The orthopedic specialist 
wrote that the applicant could return to work but should not use his right arm 
actively for six more weeks.  She predicted his rehabilitation would take from six 
to  eight  months.    Although  on  March  10,  2005,  the  applicant  asked  the  doctor 
treating  his  adjustment  disorder  for  pain  medication,  the  Board  finds  that  the 

preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  in  March  2005  the 
applicant was recovering very well from surgery and had little or no pain. 

 
8. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that he was entitled to PDES processing and a disability rating with retirement or 
severance  pay.    Under  10  U.S.C.  § 1203,  members  may  only  receive  severance 
pay if they have a disability that “based upon accepted medical principles, ... is 
or may be of a permanent nature.”  All of the evidence in the record indicates 
that the condition of the applicant’s shoulder at the time of his discharge was not 
considered permanent by Dr. O, his orthopedic surgeon; Dr. R, his physician; or 
the orthopedic specialist who examined him on March 3, 2005.  Dr. O expected 
him to be completely healed and fit within a three to six months of the date of 
surgery.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  entitled  PDES  processing  and  a 
disability rating with retirement or severance pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1203 or its 
implementing regulations. 

 
9. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Coast Guard erred in finding him fit for duty and thus qualified for an 
administrative discharge.  Under Article 2.C.2.e. of the PDES Manual, members 
who are convalescing from surgery but are expected to make a full recovery in   
the  near  future  may  properly  be  found  fit  for  duty.    The  Board  finds  that  the 
reports made by the applicant’s physicians and orthopedic specialist in February 
and March 2005 prove that, though still needing months of physical therapy, he 
was expected to make a full recovery and was already sufficiently well to return 
to desk work.  Moreover, the applicant has not proved that the doctors’ expecta-
tions were false.   

 
10. 

The reports of Dr. O and the orthopedic specialist show that they 
were confident that the applicant would fully recuperate.  Therefore, the Board 
finds that the applicant has not proved that his convalescent condition rendered 
him unfit for continued duty or that it legally prevented the Coast Guard from 
taking  action  on  his  alcohol  incidents  and  repeated  acts  of  misconduct  by 
administratively discharging him on March 10, 2005.  The applicant alleged that 
the Coast Guard should have retained him on active duty until he had completed 
rehabilitation,  but  there  is  no  statute  or  regulation  requiring  the  retention  of 
members  undergoing  physical  therapy  following  surgery  when  their  full 
recovery  is  confidently  expected.    Although  Article  12.B.6.d.4.  states  that  a 
member being discharged for a reason other than the expiration of the enlistment 
has a temporary disability, the member may consent to remain in service, it does 
not state that the Coast Guard is required to retain the member in service despite 
any misconduct he has committed.  

 

11. 

The  medical  treatment  of  members  who  have  service-connected 
injuries but who are discharged for reasons other than physical disability is the 
responsibility  of  the  DVA,  not  the  military.    The  record  indicates  that  the 
applicant  was  properly  advised  by  the  Coast  Guard  to  seek  further  medical 
treatment from the DVA.  Although the DVA allegedly refused to treat him, that 
does  not  mean  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  or  committed  any  injustice  in 
discharging him before he had completed rehabilitation. 

 
12. 

The  applicant  objected  to  the  narrative  reason  “Alcohol  Rehabili-
tation  Failure”  in  block  28  of  his  DD  214.    Every  separation  order  that  CGPC 
issued for the applicant stated that block 28 should show only the more general 
reason  of  “Unsuitability”  rather  than  the  more  specific  reason.    Therefore,  the 
Board  finds  that  block  28  of  the  applicant’s  DD  214  should  be  changed  to 
“Unsuitability.” 

 
13. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  reenlistment  code.  
Although the Board agrees that block 28 should contain the more general reason 
for discharge of “Unsuitability,” he was in fact discharged because of his second 
alcohol incident and alcohol rehabilitation failure and his separation code, JPD, 
denotes that fact.  The only reenlistment code authorized for anyone discharged 
due to alcohol abuse or alcohol rehabilitation failure is RE-4.  The Board finds no 
basis whatsoever in the record for upgrading the applicant’s reenlistment code. 
 

14.  Accordingly, block 28 of the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected 
to  show  “Unsuitability”  as  his  narrative  reason  for  discharge,  but  all  other 
requested relief should be denied. 
 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SA  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  him  a  new  DD  214  with  “Unsuitability”  in 
block 28, instead of “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.”  In addition, the following 
notation may be made in block 18:  "Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No other relief is granted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young