DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-090 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 February 16, 
2007, upon receipt of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 15, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, who was permanently retired from the Coast Guard by reason of physical 
disability1 on August 23, 2004, with a 50% disability rating, asked the Board to increase his dis-
ability rating to at least 70%.  The applicant alleged that his disability rating should be increased 
because the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) has awarded him an additional 10% rating 
for service-connected temporomandibular joint dysfunction (TMJ) with myofascial pain disorder 
and a 10% rating for service-connected gastroesophageal reflux with hiatal hernia.  He also noted 
that his family doctor has determined that he is 100% disabled.  The applicant further alleged 
that he should have received at least a 70% rating because a Coast Guard doctor measured his 
GAF  (global  assessment  of  functioning)  to  be  45-55,  and  a  DVA  attorney  told  him  that  this 
measurement warranted at least a 70% disability rating. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a DVA decision, dated November 
15, 2005, showing that he was awarded the following ratings for service-connected disabilities 

                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, 
grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  physical  disability  incurred  while  entitled  to  basic  pay”  may  be  retired  if  the 
disability is (1) permanent and stable, (2) not a result of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 years of 
service,  30%  or  higher  under  the  VASRD  at  the  time  of  retirement.    Chapter  2.A.38.  of  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation System (PDES) Manual defines “physical disability” as “[a]ny manifest or latent physical impairment or 
impairments due to disease, injury, or aggravation by service of an existing condition, regardless of the degree, that 
separately makes or in combination make a member unfit for continued duty.”   

under the Veterans’ Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) effective as of August 24, 
2004, the day after his retirement from the Coast Guard: 

 
•  50%  for  anxiety  disorder  with  delusions  (also  claimed  as  delusional  disorder  and 

•  10%  for  gastroesophageal  reflux  with  hiatal  hernia  (claimed  as  chronic  indigestion 

schizophrenia); 

and reflux disease); 

•  10% for TMJ with myofascial pain disorder; and 
•  0% for hemorrhoids. 
 
His combined disability rating from the DVA was 60%.  The DVA based the 10% rating 
for service-connected gastroesophageal reflux with hiatal hernia on a finding that the applicant 
had complained of frequent heartburn and indigestion prior to his retirement.  The 10% rating for 
TMJ with myofascial pain was based on the applicant’s complaints of popping and tenderness in 
his jaw after he was in a motor vehicle accident in March 2000.  The DVA denied service con-
nection for asthma, tinnitus, personality disorder with schizotypal and paranoid traits, and post-
operative amblyopia with strabismus of the right eye. 

 
 
The applicant supplemented the file with his latest DVA decision, dated April 30, 2007, 
which increased his disability rating for “schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (formerly anxiety 
disorder with delusions)” from 50% to 70% as of November 21, 2006.  The decision states that 
his combined disability rating is 80%.   

 
The applicant also submitted a psychologist’s report dated December 8, 2004, which was 
apparently prepared for the DVA.  The psychologist reported that, given the applicant’s report of 
his condition and his prescribed medication, her diagnostic impression was that he suffered from 
“schizophrenia undifferentiated type, other or unspecified pattern.”  She reported that his GAF 
was 65. 
 
 
The applicant submitted reports from his current doctor dated September 23, 2004; Octo-
ber 13, 2004; December 15, 2004; January 24, 2005; April 4, 2005; and November 4, 2005.  The 
reports indicate that he is treating the applicant for schizoaffective schizophrenia.  The earliest 
report notes that the applicant also complained of asthma and hemorrhoids but that the appli-
cant’s respiratory complaint was actually psychogenic dyspnea (labored breathing)—a symptom 
of tiredness and depression. 
 

The same doctor wrote a letter for the applicant on May 12, 2005, in which he stated that 
the applicant was taking his medication regularly but “continues to be profoundly limited by his 
disease.  His self esteem has been damaged.  As long as he maintains his medication, his abnor-
mal thought processes are held in check.  However, he has trouble comprehending data and per-
forming any type of complex task.  He continues to be medically disabled 100% at this point in 
time.”  In addition, the applicant submitted a copy of a doctor’s note on a prescription pad dated 
July 17, 2006, which states that he “is disabled from work until further notice.” 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant served in the Coast Guard from August 7, 1990, through October 15, 1993, 
when  he  was  released  into  the  Reserve.    On  January  29,  1996,  the  applicant  reenlisted  in  the 
Coast Guard.  He continued to serve on active duty and advanced to the rate of storekeeper sec-
ond class.  He received several awards and commendations, including a “Sailor of the Quarter” 
award. 

 
On July 28, 2003, the applicant’s command counseled him about a significant decline in 
his performance during the prior two weeks.  The command placed him on performance proba-
tion.    On  November  4,  2003,  the  applicant  underwent  a  psychological  assessment  at  a  Navy 
hospital after being referred by his command because of “odd or bizarre behaviors in the work 
center, such a talking or laughing to himself when no one else is around … admitted discontinu-
ance of contracts for implausible conduct on the part of contractors; he has mismanaged funds 
and  has  said  things  that  indicated  racial  prejudice  and  sexism  …  his  duty  performance  has 
declined.” 

 
 
On  November  19,  2003,  a  Navy  psychologist  reported  that  psychological  testing  indi-
cated that the applicant suffered from “a severe personality disorder (paranoid or schizotypal) or 
a schizophrenia spectrum disorder.  [He] no longer appears to be fit for retention in the USCG.  
He should be placed on LIMDU for a period of 08 months for further assessment and treatment.  
He may need to be considered for a MEB.”  He diagnosed the applicant with “delusional disor-
der”  and  “personality  disorder  NOS  [not  otherwise  specified]  with  schizotypal  and  paranoid 
traits.”  He also noted a possibility that the applicant might have schizophrenia and that the appli-
cant’s GAF was 68. 
  
 
 
On November 25, 2003, the applicant underwent a CT scan of his brain because of his 
“increasing paranoid and disorganized thought and behavior,” as well as complaints about fre-
quent headaches since a motor vehicle accident in 2000.  The results of the CT scan were nor-
mal. 
 
 
On December 5, 2003, a staff psychiatrist at the Navy hospital prepared a report for a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in which he diagnosed the applicant with schizoaffective dis-
order2 on Axis I and schizotypal and paranoid traits on Axis II.  The psychiatrist reported that the 
applicant’s GAF was currently 45-55 and that the applicant was unfit for duty due to the severity 
of his psychiatric disorders and referred him for further evaluation and disposition by a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB).   
 

                                                 
2 “Schizoaffective disorder” is a psychotic disorder that is characterized by the symptoms of schizophrenia, such as 
delusions,  hallucinations,  disorganized  speech,  and  grossly  disorganized  or  catatonic  behavior,  plus  a  major 
depressive  and/or  manic  disorder.    It  is  sometimes  preceded  by  a  schizoid,  schizotypal,  borderline,  or  paranoid 
personality  disorder.  American  Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL 
DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 319-21.  Schizoaffective disorder is part of 
“schizophrenia spectrum,” along with schizotypal personality disorder.  Id. at 309.  Chapter 5.B.7. of the Medical 
Manual states that schizoaffective disorder is disqualifying for military service and that members with this condition 
should be evaluated by a medical board and processed for separation under the PDES. 

 
On  March  25,  2004,  the  applicant  submitted  a  rebuttal  to  the  report  and  asked  to  be 
retained on active duty.  The applicant stated that because of an accounting error discovered in 
April 2003, his command questioned his integrity and professionalism.  He alleged that because 
of this incident, he did not receive a fair and unbiased psychological evaluation.  The applicant 
also noted that he suffered from tightness in his jaw, which increased his stress level, and had 
been prescribed medication to relieve the tightness.   
 

The  applicant  further  stated  in  his  rebuttal  to  the  report  that  on  February  27,  2004,  he 
consulted a psychiatrist for a second opinion.  The report of this psychiatrist indicates that the 
psychiatrist found “no evidence to support any psychological disorder” during his interview with 
the applicant.  The psychiatrist reported the applicant’s GAF to be 85. 
 
 
On April 2, 2004, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded the report to the 
Group Commander with a recommendation that the applicant be released from active duty.  The 
CO stated that due to repetitive and costly financial errors, the applicant’s privileges on the unit’s 
financial network had been revoked and that the applicant’s behavior had become increasingly 
disruptive.  The CO reported that the applicant was unable to focus on his work or to discuss the 
work in a constructive conversation. 
 

On April 13, 2004, the Group Commander forwarded the report to the Coast Guard Per-
sonnel Command (CGPC) and recommended that the applicant be released from active duty.  He 
noted that the second opinion received by the applicant was based on only a single interview, 
whereas the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was based on several visits. 

 
On June 4, 2004, the applicant underwent more psychological testing and was evaluated 
by another psychiatrist because the report forwarded to CGPC had not contained an assessment 
by the senior physician of the MEB.  In response, a psychiatrist serving as the senior physician 
for the MEB submitted a new report in which he stated that the applicant suffered from paranoid 
delusions about his command, the local police, and local merchants.  He diagnosed the applicant 
with  “Delusional  Disorder,  Persecutory  type”  and  no  personality  disorder.    He  assessed  the 
applicant’s GAF as 65.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant was mentally unfit for further 
military duty and should be referred to a PEB. 

 
On June 16, 2004, the PEB convened to review the records and recommended that the 
applicant  be  permanently  retired  with  a  50%  disability  rating  for  “schizoaffective  disorder—
occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symp-
toms as stereotyped speech; impaired judgment; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty 
in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.”   

 
On  June  17,  2004,  CGPC  informed  the  applicant  of  the  PEB’s  recommendation  and 
assigned him counsel to decide whether to accept the recommendation or to demand a formal 
hearing.  On June 22, 2004, after consulting counsel, the applicant accepted the PEB’s recom-
mendation  that  he  be  retired  with  a  50%  disability  rating.    The  PEB’s  recommendation  was 
approved  on  July  27,  2004,  and  the  applicant  was  permanently  retired  by  reason  of  physical 
disability on August 23, 2004. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On June 25, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief.  The JAG adopted the 
findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC.   

 
CGPC noted that under Chapter 2.C.3.a.(3)(a) of the Physical Disability Evaluation Sys-
tem (PDES) Manual, when a PEB determines that a member on active duty is disabled and unfit 
for continued duty, the PEB must also  

propose ratings for those disabilities which are themselves physically unfitting or which relate to 
or contribute to the condition(s) that cause the evaluee to be unfit for continued duty. The board 
shall  not  rate  an  impairment  that  does  not  contribute  to  the  condition  of  unfitness  or  cause  the 
evaluee to be unfit for duty along with another condition that is determined to be disqualifying in 
arriving at the rated degree of incapacity incident to retirement from military service for disability. 
In making this professional judgment, board members will only rate those disabilities which make 
an evaluee unfit for military service or which contribute to his or her inability to perform military 
duty. This policy applies to those evaluees whose initial entry into the PDES occurs subsequent to 
9 July 1987. In accordance with the current VASRD, the percentage of disability existing at the 
time of evaluation, the code number and diagnostic nomenclature for each disability, and the com-
bined percentage of disability will be provided.  
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  received  all  due  process  under  the  PDES  before  he 
 
accepted the PEB’s recommendation of a 50% disability rating.  CGPC stated that although the 
applicant  believes  that  the  Coast  Guard  should  have  rated  his  TMJ  with  myofascial  pain  and 
gastroesophageal reflux with hiatal hernia, there is no evidence in the record that “these condi-
tions  were  unfitting  or  that  they  contributed  to  the  condition  which  caused  his  unfitness  for 
duty,” which is a necessary condition for a disability rating under Chapter 2.C.3.a.(3)(a) of the 
PDES Manual.  CGPC also stated that the applicant’s allegation that his GAF score required a 
rating of at least 70% is unfounded as there is no such requirement under the VASRD or Coast 
Guard regulations. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the fact that the DVA awarded the applicant a combined disability rat-
ing of 70% as of his date of separation does not prove that the Coast Guard erred in assigning 
him a 50% rating.  CGPC explained that the  
 

military  disability  system  determines  unfitness  for  duty  and  then  rates  only  the  extent  that  the 
unfitting medical condition or conditions prevent the member from performing their duties at that 
time.  The DVA ratings are based on an evaluation of the whole person, including the evaluation 
of the evaluee’s employability and earning capacity.  Accordingly, DVA ratings are not determi-
native of the issues involved in military disability ratings determinations. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On July 3, 2007, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  The applicant 
reported  that  the  DVA  has  awarded  him  a  100%  rating  for  unemployability  and  repeated  his 
allegation that his GAF score warranted a rating higher than 70%.  The applicant further com-
plained  that  although  the  Coast  Guard  awarded  him  a  50%  rating,  the  benefit  he  receives  is 
“more like 40%” and that because the Coast Guard lost his medical records, his benefits were 

delayed for over two years.  The applicant asked the board to raise his rating to 90% or 100% so 
that if the DVA ever lowers his percentage, “the Coast Guard could be there to help.” 
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
 Chapter 2.C.2.a. of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C) provides that the “sole 
standard”  that  a  PEB  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 disease or injury incurred or aggravated through military service.”   
 

Chapter 2.C.2.i. states that the “existence of a physical defect or condition that is ratable 
under the standard schedule for rating disabilities in use by the [DVA] does not of itself provide 
justification  for,  or  entitlement  to,  separation  or  retirement  from  military  service  because  of 
physical disability.  Although a member may have physical impairments ratable in accordance 
with the VASRD, such impairments do not necessarily render him or her unfit for military duty. 
…  Such  a  member  should  apply  to  the  [DVA]  for  disability  compensation  after  release  from 
active duty.”   

 
Chapter 9.A.1.c.(1) states that “[t]here is no legal requirement, in making disability retire-
ment determinations, to rate a physical condition, not in itself considered to be disqualifying for 
military service, along with another condition that is determined to be disqualifying, in arriving 
at  the  rated  degree  of  incapacity  incident  to  retirement  from  military  service  for  disability. 
Except as discussed in (2) below [concerning post-operative residuals], in making this profes-
sional judgment board members will not rate those disabilities neither unfitting for military ser-
vice nor contributing to the inability to perform military duty.” 
 
 
 

Chapter 9.A.2. states the following: 

 
 

a.  The VASRD is used in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and inju-
ries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The percentage ratings represent, as 
far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from 
such diseases and injuries, and their residual conditions, in civilian occupations.  
 
b.  Conditions which do not render the member unfit for continued service will not be considered 
for determining the compensable disability rating  unless they contribute to the  finding  of unfit-
ness. 

Chapter 9.A.3. states the following:  
 
a. It is not expected that every case will show the exact symptomatology specified in the VASRD, 
especially with the more fully described grades. Findings which are sufficiently characteristic of 
the symptoms described in the VASRD and the evaluee’s disability are adequate. Above all, coor-
dination of assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the rating with impairment 
of  function  is  required  in  all  instances.    There  is  no  rigid  requirement  for  the  presence  of  all 
enumerated manifestations of a given disability. Those manifestations which are sufficiently and 
significantly representative of the entity and the severity of limitations imposed on the member are 
the only requirements.  
 
b. Where there is a reasonable doubt as to which of two percentage evaluations should be applied, 
the higher evaluation will be criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.  

When, after careful consideration of all reasonably procurable and assembled data, there remains a 
reasonable doubt as to which rating should be applied, such doubt shall be resolved in favor of the 
member, and the higher rating assigned.  
 
Under the VASRD at 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, a member diagnosed with schizoaffective dis-

order (code 9211) should receive a disability rating as follows: 
 

 

100% for “[t]otal occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as:  gross impair-
ment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inap-
propriate  behavior;  persistent  danger  of  hurting  self  or  others;  intermittent  inability  to  perform 
activities of daily living (including  maintenance of  minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to 
time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.” 
 
70%  for  “[o]ccupational  and  social  impairment,  with  deficiencies  in  most  areas,  such  as  work, 
school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; 
obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, 
or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, 
appropriately  and  effectively;  impaired  impulse  control  (such  as  unprovoked  irritability  with 
periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty 
in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish 
and maintain effective relationships.” 
 
50% for “[o]ccupational and social impairment  with reduced reliability and productivity due to 
such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic 
attacks  more  than  once  a  week;  difficulty  in  understanding  complex  commands;  impairment  of 
short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to com-
plete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; 
difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.” 
 
30% for “[o]ccupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and 
intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning sat-
isfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: 
depressed  mood,  anxiety,  suspiciousness,  panic  attacks  (weekly  or  less  often),  chronic  sleep 
impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events).” 
 
10% for “[o]ccupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease 
work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, 
or; symptoms controlled by continuous medication.” 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely. 

The  Board begins  each  case presuming that the  applicant’s military  records are 
correct and that Coast Guard officials, including his doctors and medical boards, have acted cor-

1. 

 
2. 

rectly and in  good faith in assigning his disability rating.3  The applicant bears the burden of 
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his disability rating was wrong.4  Although the 
applicant accepted the PEB’s recommendation that he be discharged with a 50% disability rating 
for schizoaffective disorder, he now alleges that he should have received at least a 70% rating 
from the Coast Guard at the time of his retirement because (a) his GAF was measured at “45-55” 
and (b) the DVA found his TMJ with myofascial pain and gastroesophageal reflux with hiatal 
hernia to be service connected and assigned a rating of 10% to each condition.     

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard should have assigned him a higher dis-
ability  rating  based  on  his  psychiatric  condition  alone  because  the  psychiatrist  who  examined 
him in December 2003 reported his GAF to be “45-55.”  This broad range of GAF indicates that 
at  the  time  of  examination,  the  applicant  exhibited  serious  to  moderate  symptoms  interfering 
with his occupational functioning.5  However, the official report of the senior psychiatrist for the 
MEB,  dated  June  4,  2004,  assessed  the  applicant’s  GAF  to  be  65,  which  means  that  he  had 
“some mild symptoms” that interfered with his occupational functioning.6  Whatever the appli-
cant’s usual GAF at the time of his retirement, however, the GAF is not determinative of what 
disability rating the applicant should have been assigned.  Under Chapters 9.A.2. and 9.A.3. of 
the PDES Manual, disability ratings are assigned by comparing the member’s condition with the 
written descriptions for each potential percentage rating in the VASRD.  The VASRD descrip-
tions for psychiatric disability ratings do not mention GAF assessments.  Therefore, the fact that 
the  applicant’s  GAF  was  once  measured  to  be  45-55  does  not  prove  that  the  50%  rating  he 
received from the Coast Guard for his psychiatric condition was erroneous.   

The descriptions of the applicant’s condition by the various military psychiatrists 
who evaluated him prior to his separation and by his CO do not indicate that the 50% rating he 
received was wrong.  The CO and the psychiatrists reported odd, unreliable behavior and dimin-
ished  productivity,  as  required  for  a  50%  rating.7    They  did  not  report  the  more  severe 
symptomatology  the  VASRD  requires  for  a  70%  rating  or  higher,  such  as  suicidal  ideation, 
obsessional rituals, near-continuous panic or depression, impaired impulse control, spatial disori-
entation,  and  inability  to  establish  effective  relationships.8    The  fact  that  the  DVA  originally 
assigned  the  applicant  a  50%  disability  rating  for  his  psychiatric  condition  also  supports  the 
accuracy  of  the  50%  rating  assigned  to  him  by  the  Coast  Guard.    Moreover,  the  fact  that  the 
applicant  agreed  with  the  PEB’s  recommendation  for  a  50%  rating,  after  consulting  counsel, 
indicates that he agreed with their assessment of his condition in 2004. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  a  report  from  a  doctor  dated 
May  12,  2005,  who  wrote  that  the  applicant  was  100%  disabled,  and  recent  decisions  of  the 
DVA, which raised his rating for his psychiatric condition from 50% to 70% as of November 21, 
2006, and which recently raised his total rating to 100% based on a finding of unemployability.  
                                                 
3 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”). 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).   
5 DSM-IV-TR, p. 34. 
6 Id. 
7 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 
8 Id. 

6. 

However, evidence of the severity of the applicant’s psychiatric condition months or years after 
his retirement does not prove the severity of his condition at the time of his retirement, which is 
what a disability rating from the Coast Guard is supposed to reflect.  The Coast Guard and other 
military services assign disability ratings that reflect members’ unfitness for active duty at the 
time of separation; post-separation increases in disability are properly reflected in increases in 
the DVA’s ratings, not in increases in the ratings assigned by the military services.  The Board 
finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his 50% rating for 
schizoaffective disorder from the Coast Guard was erroneous or unjust or that, at the time of his 
retirement,  his  psychiatric  condition  met  the  criteria  for  a  70%  or  100%  rating  under  the 
VASRD. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that his Coast Guard disability rating should be higher than 
50% because the DVA found his TMJ with myofascial pain and his gastroesophageal reflux with 
hiatal  hernia  to  be  “service  connected”  and  assigned  each  condition  a  10%  disability  rating.  
However, the DVA assigns ratings for all service-connected disabilities ratable under the VASRD 
in accordance with how they affect a veteran’s civilian employment,9 whereas the Coast Guard 
assigns disability ratings only for those disabilities that render the member permanently unfit to 
perform continued active duty at the time of separation or that contribute to the finding of unfit-
ness for continued duty.10  DVA ratings are “not determinative of the same issues involved in 
military  disability  cases.”11    Therefore,  the  fact  that  the  DVA  found  the  applicant’s  TMJ  and 
reflux to be service connected and assigned each condition a 10% disability rating does not prove 
that the Coast Guard erred in failing to rate these two conditions since the DVA rates all service-
connected  impairments  whether  or  not  they  actually  rendered  the  member  unfit  for  continued 
active duty or contributed to the finding of unfitness.   

 
7. 

 To prevail on his claim that the Coast Guard erred in failing to rate his TMJ and 
reflux condition as well as his schizoaffective disorder, the applicant must prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that his TMJ and/or reflux condition rendered him unfit for continued duty 
or contributed to the finding of unfitness.12  There is no evidence in the record that the appli-
cant’s gastroesophageal reflux with hiatal hernia rendered him unfit for continued service or con-
tributed to his unfitness at the time of his retirement.  Although  the DVA decision states that 
while  serving  on  active  duty,  he  complained  of  frequent  heartburn  and  indigestion,  not  every 
medical condition or impairment renders a member unfit or contributes to unfitness since many 
members tolerate various medical conditions while continuing to serve on active duty without 
restrictions.13  The DVA decision also shows that the applicant incurred his TMJ while serving 
on active duty, but the only evidence in the record indicating that the TMJ may have contributed 
to his unfitness is in his request to remain on active duty dated March 25, 2004.  In that request, 
the applicant attributed his problems to a conflict with his CO and stated that his TMJ had added 
to his stress.  However, none of the medical reports in his record attribute any of his behavioral 
problems  or  other  psychiatric  symptoms  to  TMJ  with  myofascial  pain.    Therefore,  the  Board 
finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard 

                                                 
9 38 C.F.R.§ 4.1. 
10 PDES Manual, Chaps. 2.C.3.a.(3)(a), 2.C.2.i., 9.A.1.c.(1), and 9.A.2.b. 
11 Lord v. United States, 2 Ct. Cl. 749, 754 (1983). 
12 PDES Manual, Chaps. 2.C.3.a.(3)(a), 2.C.2.i., 9.A.1.c.(1), and 9.A.2.b. 
13 PDES Manual, Chap. 2.C.2.b. 

erred in failing to assign disability ratings for his gastroesophageal reflux with hiatal hernia or 
his TMJ with myofascial pain. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the  evidence that his 50% 
disability rating from the Coast Guard should be increased.  He has not proved that his psychiat-
ric symptoms met the criteria for a higher rating at the time of his retirement or that his other 
medical conditions should have been rated as well as his psychiatric condition.  The record indi-
cates  that  the  applicant  received  due  process  under  the  PDES  Manual  and  accepted  the  50% 
rating prior to his retirement. 

 
8. 

 
9. 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, for correction of his military record 

ORDER 

 

 
 

is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger