DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-091 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

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  application  on 
February 16, 2007, upon receipt of a completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 
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  October  25,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was discharged by 
reason of physical disability rather than by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  
He alleged that he suffered head trauma due to a motorcycle accident while on active duty in the 
Coast Guard and that he has continued to suffer from psychiatric problems since the accident.  
He  further  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  mental  disability  and 
should have had a medical discharge. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  prior  to  the  motorcycle  accident  he  was  a  hardworking 
individual,  but  after  the  accident  he  was  not  able  to  cope  with  life  and  self  medicated  with 
alcohol and drugs for 18 years.   
 

The applicant alleged that he discovered the alleged error on July 15, 1989, but was not 
aware until recently that his problems were due to the motorcycle accident. He argued that the 
Board  should  excuse  his  failure  to  file  timely  because  he  is  an  addict  as  a  result  of  self 
medicating with alcohol and drugs.    

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  after  leaving  the  Coast  Guard,  he  joined  the  Army  National 
Guard and there is a May 2004 entry in his medical file stating that he was fit for duty in the 
National  Guard.    There  is  also  an  entry  in  the  applicant’s  medical  file  indicating  that  he  had 
worked as a nurse for seventeen years after leaving the Coast Guard, but that he was fired for 

abusing  narcotics.      The  record  indicates  that  in  2005  the  applicant  first  reported  to  the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) complaining about his back.  He indicated that he had 
fallen on some ice.   In 2006, the applicant was diagnosed and treated by the DVA for diskitis1 
and osteomyelitis,2 but the record indicates that the DVA did not consider these conditions to be 
service-connected.   
 

BACKGROUND 

 
 
Prior to enlisting in the Coast Guard the applicant had served in the United States Army 
and was honorably discharged in 1986.  On May 18, 1987, he enlisted in the United States Coast 
Guard and was discharged on May 13, 1989. 
 
 
Prior to his discharge from the Coast Guard, the applicant had a motorcycle accident on 
April 21, 1988.  As a result, he suffered a closed head injury with traumatic encephalopathy and 
a compression fracture of the T-12 and L-1 vertebra.   
 
 
On June 21, 1988, a medical board was held on the applicant.  The medical board report 
stated that the applicant suffered some post traumatic amnesia with some memory loss of past 
and recent events.  It reported that the applicant was discharged from the hospital on leave in an 
improved  condition.    The  report  also  noted  a  follow-up  evaluation  in  which  the  applicant’s 
neurological  status  had  improved,  but  a  psychological  evaluation  still  showed  some  amnesia.  
The applicant had some tenderness along the T-7 paraspinal muscles.    The medical board stated 
that the applicant not fit for full duty, but he was fit for a period of limited duty, after which it 
was  expected  that  the  applicant  would  return  to  full  duty.    The  medical  Board  made  the 
following recommendations for limited duty: 
 

[T]hat he be returned to six months limited duty, ashore, during which time he 
should avoid frequent bending, lifting, and physical fitness testing.  He may have 
some difficulty remembering and this should be considered in his job description.  
He  will  be  re-evaluated  in  neurosurgery  and  he  will  be  followed  by  the 
Orthopedic Spine Clinic, Portsmouth Naval Hospital.  The patient should continue 
phenobarbitol  .  .  .    This  case  is  referred  to  the  reviewing  authority,  U.S.  Coast 
Guard for disposition.   

 
 
 
On  September  15,  1988,  the  head  of  neurosurgery  at  a  Naval  hospital  stated  that  the 
applicant’s  neurological  examination  was  completely  normal,  but  that  he  still  showed  some 
amnesia for the events related to the motorcycle accident.  The neurosurgeon indicated that the 
applicant should have an EEG and neuropsychological evaluation.   
 
 
On October 6, 1988, the medical board determined that the applicant was fit for full duty.  
The medical board referenced a SF-600 dated October 6, 1988 medical note that the applicant’s 
                                                 
1   Diskitis is “inflammation of a disk, particularly of an interarticular disk.  Dorland Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 
29th edition, p. 526. 
 
2  Osteomyelitis is inflammation of the bone caused by an infection.  Id.   

 

neuropsychological testing was normal and that he had reached pre-trauma status and ready for a 
return to full duty.    
 

On October 25, 1988, the applicant signed a “Patient’s Statement Regarding the Findings 

On October 24, 1988, the applicant underwent  a medical examination for the Physical 
Disability Evaluation System (PDES) processing.  The medical report stated that the applicant 
was physically qualified to perform all aspects of duties normally assigned to a SN.   This report 
also noted that the applicant had been discharged from orthopedic and neurological care.     
 
 
of the Medical Board” and expressed his desire not to rebut the medical board.   
 
 
On November 10, 1988, the head of the neurology department of the military hospital 
where the applicant was treated after the accident wrote that the applicant had been examined 
that day and showed no focal findings.  “His recent EEG and psychological test[s] were normal.  
I believe he is fit for full duty including aviation.” 
 
 
On December 23, 1988, the applicant was admitted to the psychiatric unit of a hospital 
for  evaluation  of  severe  anxiety  and  possible  mood  disorder.    The  narrative  summary  of  the 
applicant’s hospital stay stated that he was feeling frustrated, angry and anxious because he had 
not gotten the job he wanted and that he had begun to feel stress in dealing with the job that he 
had. The narrative summary also reported that the applicant was agitated and tremulous while 
talking to his supervisor.  The summary noted that the applicant continued to be unable to recall 
the  motorcycle  accident  and  part  of  the  hospitalization  that  resulted  from  that  accident.  The 
report  also  stated  that  the  applicant  wanted  to  get  out  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  would  do 
“whatever it [took] to get out.”   
 
 
During his hospitalization in the psychiatric unit, the applicant underwent a psychological 
evaluation.  The  psychologist  stated  although  there  was  some  evidence  that  the  applicant  had 
problems learning new  material, it was unlikely that the applicant had any deficits significant 
enough to contribute to his current behavioral and emotional difficulties.  
 
 
The Alcohol Rehabilitation Center also evaluated the applicant.  That evaluation revealed 
that  the  applicant  had  significant  history  of  alcohol  abuse  that  was  currently  in  remission.  
However, the consultation report stated that the applicant was not an appropriate candidate for 
inpatient military alcohol rehabilitation treatment because he was not likely to be retained in the 
Coast Guard.  Therefore, the alcohol rehabilitation consultant recommended that the applicant 
follow-up with an AA group after his discharge.   
 
 
The applicant was discharged from the hospital psychiatric unit with a diagnosis of an 
“adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, acute, moderate, [and] in 
complete remission;” alcohol abuse in remission; narcissistic personality disorder with features 
of  grandiosity,  sense  of  entitlement  and  uniqueness,  hypersensitivity  to  criticism,  history  of 
interpersonal exploitation, and little empathy towards the impact of his behavior on others; and 
post left subdural hematoma secondary to motor vehicle accident in April 1998.  The narrative 
summary contained the following recommendation: 
 

Past  history  and  present  psychiatric  examination  indicate  the  presence  of  a 
chronic character-behavior disorder.  This condition reveals itself through patterns 
of behavior which interfere with adequate adjustment and  causes conflicts with 
the environment.  As a result, his ability to function in a military environment is 
significantly impaired, and it would be of benefit to both the individual and the 
Coast  Guard  that  he  be  strongly  considered  for  administrative  separation.    It  is 
recommended  that  the  patient  make  contact  with  an  Alcoholics  Anonymous 
Organization and attend their meetings regularly.  He should also continue on his 
current medication of  INH 300 mg per day.   It is further recommended that he 
obtain outpatient psychotherapy with the mental health provider of his choice.     

 
On February 16, 1989, a Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB)3  was convened in 
 
the  applicant’s  case.    The  CPEB  found  that  the  applicant  was  fit  for  duty.    Counsel  was 
appointed  to  assist  the  applicant  in  arriving  at  a  decision  whether  to  accept  the  findings  and 
recommendation of the CPEB.4 
 
 
On February 22, 1989, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) notified the applicant 
that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of 
unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  The applicant acknowledged in writing the proposed 
discharge and that he could make a statement on his own behalf.   
 
 
On  March  1,  1989,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  in  response  to  the  proposed 
administrative  discharge.    The  applicant  wrote  that  he  understood  his  psychological  diagnosis 
and he agreed with the recommendation for an administrative discharge.   He stated that he was 
having  difficulty  coping  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  that  he  felt  that  an  administrative  discharge 
would be the only solution for his personality disorder.  “I feel that my motorcycle accident is the 
main cause for my change.  I feel that because of my good record in the Army and the Coast 
Guard prior to the accident, my change for the worse came after the situation of the accident.”   
 
 
the applicant by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.   
 
 
On March 22, 1989, the applicant, with the assistance of counsel, rebutted the findings 
and recommendation of the CPEB and requested reconsideration of its decision and a hearing 
before the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).5   The applicant stated that he wanted to 
make the CPEB record complete and wrote that the initial medical board was conducted on June 

On March 10, 1989, the applicant’s CO recommended that the Commandant discharge 

                                                 
3      The  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  is  a  permanently  established  administrative  body  that  evaluates  on  a 
records  basis  the  fitness  for  duty  of  active  and  reserve  members  and  the  fitness  for  duty  of  members  on  the 
temporary  disability  retired  list.    See  Chapter  4.A.1.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  Manual 
(COMDTINST M1850.2C). 
 
4   It is unclear from the record who referred the applicant’s case to the CPEB. 
  
5 The FPEB is a fact-finding body, which holds an administrative hearing to evaluate a member's fitness for duty and 
to  make  recommendations  consistent  with  the  findings.    This  hearing  is  not  an  adversarial  proceeding,  and  the 
implication of litigation must be avoided.   See Chapter 5.A.1. of the Physical Disability Evaluation System Manual 
(COMDTINST M1850.2C). 

21, 1988, but a disposition medical board was never convened, although a medical examination 
was completed on October 24, 1988, for the PDES.  The applicant noted that the October 24, 
1988 examination was devoid of any neurological or psychological examinations since the June 
21,  1988  IMB  determined  that  the  applicant  had  a  severe  closed  head  injury  with  traumatic 
encephalopathy.  He further noted that the applicant had been hospitalized in the psychiatric unit 
of a hospital and was diagnosed with an adjustment and personality disorder.   
 
On  March  21,  1989,  the  Commandant  approved  the  CO’s  recommendation  that  the 
 
applicant be administratively discharged by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  
In a subsequent message, the Commandant  approved a delay in the applicant’s administrative 
discharge to allow for completion of the PDES process. 
 
 
On April 17, 1989, the applicant’s PDES counsel wrote the Physical Review Counsel on 
behalf  of  the  applicant.      The  applicant’s  counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  had  withdrawn  his 
request  for  a  hearing  before  the  FPEB,  and  that  the  applicant  had  been  recommended  for  an 
administrative separation that was on hold pending the completion of the PDES process.  The 
applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant wanted the administrative discharge to proceed as 
expeditiously as possible.   
 
 
and stated that he accepted the administrative discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
applicant shall not be retired or separated by reason of physical disability.   
 
 
unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  
 

On May 1, 1989, the Commandant approved the findings of the CPEB and stated that the 

On April 25, 1989, the applicant signed a letter in which he waived all PDES processing 

On  June  13,  1989,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  by  reason  of 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 19, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    He  based  his 
recommendation in part on a memorandum on the case prepared by Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC).  
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  request  is  not  timely  because  he  stated  that  he 
discovered the alleged error or injustice on July 15, 1989.  CGPC stated that the applicant did not 
provide any justification for the delay in bringing his claim after the expiration of the Board’s 
three-year statute of limitations. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s discharge is neither erroneous nor unjust and noted that 
the  applicant  voluntarily  elected  not  to  pursue  further  PDES  processing  and  was  properly 
discharged  for  a  long  standing  personality  disorder.    CGPC  argued  that  evidence  does  not 
support  a  causal  relationship  between  the  applicant’s  personality  disorder  and  his  motorcycle 
accident of April 1988.   CGPC further stated: 
 

The CPEB found the applicant fit for duty; the applicant submitted a rebuttal and 
requested a [FPEB].  The applicant was represented by legal counsel and afforded 
all  due  process  in  his  PDES  processing.    On  April  25,  1989,  the  applicant 
withdrew his request for a FPEB and requested to be administratively discharged 
in lieu of any further PDES processing. 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On July 23, 2007, a copy of the views of the Coast Guard was mailed to the applicant for 
him to submit a reply. The mailing was retuned to the BCMR with the notation “not deliverable 
as addressed, unable to forward.”  The BCMR was not able to locate the new mailing address for 
the applicant.    
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Pertinent Provision of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C)  
 

The PDES Manual governs the separation of members due to physical disability.  
Article  2.C.2.a.  provides  that  the  “sole  standard”  to  be  used  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.”   

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 section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.   

 
 
 2. The application was not timely.  The applicant had been discharged for approximately 
seventeen 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."  See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995).  

 
4.  Although the applicant discovered the alleged error on July 15, 1989, he argued that it 
is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in his case because he was an addict 
due to self-medicating with drugs and alcohol.  He stated that he is recently discovered that his 
problems are a result of the motorcycle accident that occurred while he was in the Coast Guard.  

There is evidence in the record that the applicant abused alcohol even while in the Coast Guard, 
but there is no evidence in the record that the applicant’s alcohol abuse or other alleged drug use 
was so severe that he was not aware of the basis for his discharge or that he was unable to file an 
application with the BCMR.    

 
5.  Even though the Board is not persuaded to waive the statute based on the applicant’s 
reason for not filing his application within the time period allowed, the Board must still perform 
a cursory review of the merits in deciding whether to excuse the applicant’s untimely filing.  A 
review of the merits indicates that the applicant is not likely to prevail on his request for a change 
in the reason for his discharge, as discussed below.   

 
6.   First, after approximately six months on limited duty after his motorcycle accident, a 
medical board and the CPEB found that the applicant was fit for full duty.  During the PDES 
process,  the  applicant  was  physically  and  mentally  evaluated.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he 
suffered from a mental disability at the time of discharge; however the psychologist found that 
he suffered only from an adjustment and a personality disorder, neither of which is considered to 
be a physical disability.  See Article 2.A.7. of the PDES Manual.   

 
7.    Second,  the  applicant  expressed  his  decision  to  accept  an  administrative  discharge 
from the Coast Guard in writing, even though the PDES process was incomplete.  In a written 
statement  he  waived  all  PDES  processing  and  stated  that  he  accepted  the  administrative 
discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  was  afforded  due  process  and  had  assigned 
counsel for the PDES process.  Therefore, the Board presumes that counsel advised the applicant 
about  the  ramifications  of  his  decision  to  accept  an  administrative  discharge  from  the  Coast 
Guard due to a personality disorder rather than continuing to contest the findings of the CPEB.    

   
8.  Third, the applicant has presented no evidence, except for his own allegation that he 
currently suffers from a mental disability, and even if he had presented such evidence, there is no 
medical evidence of a causal relationship between any alleged current disability and the  1988 
motorcycle accident.    

 
9.  Therefore, due to the passage of time, the lack of a persuasive reason for not filing his 
application in a timely manner, and the probable lack of success on the merits of his claim, the 
Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case.   

 
10.    Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  the  application  should  be  denied  because  it  is 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

untimely and because it lacks merit.   

 

 
 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young