DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-107 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 March 
8, 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 November 15, 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 misconduct due to fraudulent enlistment.  
He alleged that he was discharged because of a Bipolar Disorder and that he “was lied to.”  He 
stated that his career is ruined and he cannot get proper medical attention.   
 

BACKGROUND 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 14, 2003, for four years.  On enlist-
ment form 1966/1 the applicant indicated that he had used marijuana.  On his medical enlistment 
form 2807 dated December 26, 2002, in addition to marijuana, the applicant stated that he had 
also used other drugs; on form 2807-2 he denied that he had seen a psychiatrist, psychologist, 
counselor or other professional for any reason and further explained that it had been over a year 
since he last used marijuana.   
 
On July 11, 2003, an Initial Medical Board (IMB)1 was convened because the applicant 
 
had been diagnosed with a Bipolar I disorder.  The IMB reported the applicant’s medical history 
as follows: 
                                                 
1 An IMB is the written report of a medical board convened to evaluate a member’s fitness for duty and to make 
recommendations  consistent  with  the  findings.    Article  2.A.24.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System 
Manual.   

 

According to a review of health record, systems, and social and family histories, 
[the applicant] has a past history of Bipolar Manic Disorder at age 17 and using 
illegal  substances.    He  was  hospitalized  at  age  17  for  three  days  treated  with 
Seroquel  and  Klonopin.    He  underwent  psychological  counseling  until  age  18.  
The patient stopped the medicine because in his own words “I did not need it.”  
He  had  no  trouble  at  college  but  took  friend’s  Xanax  (used  PRN  for  stress  at 
college).  He admitted the use of cocaine, speed, acid, and ecstasy quitting at age 
19.    In  May  2003,  the  member  was  displaying  anxiety  symptoms  and  voiced 
suicidal  intentions.    He  was  sent  to  Manatee  Glens  Hospital  and  was  inpatient 
from 17 to 20 May 2003.  The applicant was discharged on Depakote 500 mg two 
at  bedtime  and  Lexapro  10  mg  in  the  morning  and  referred  to  outpatient 
psychiatric  care.    On  31  May  2003,  [Dr.  S],  Board  Certified  Psychiatry  .  .  . 
evaluated the patient.  [Dr. S] changed the patient’s treatment to Topomax 25 mg 
TID, Lithium 400 mg in am and 900 mg before bed and Risperidone 1 mg twice a 
day.    He  stated  that  he  was  taking  the  medication  and  having  no  side  effects.  
Also, the patient was receiving psychotherapy on weekly basis . . .  

 
 
Dr. P, a psychiatrist from the Life Skills Support Center, also diagnosed the applicant as 
suffering from Bipolar I Disorder.  Dr. P recommended that the applicant continue on Lithium 
and Topomax, that he have convalescent leave duty status, and that he not carry a firearm.  She 
found that the applicant was not suitable for military duties.   
 
 
The IMB agreed that the applicant suffered from Bipolar I Disorder, that he was unable to 
perform the duties of his rank and rate, and that he was never expected to be fit for full duty.  
The IMB recommended that the applicant’s case be referred to the Central Physical Evaluation 
Board.2    
 

On  August  15,  2003,  the  applicant’s  OIC  concurred  that  the  applicant  should  be 
discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    However,  the  OIC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  condition 
appeared  to  have  pre-existed  his  enlistment,  that  he  should  be  held  accountable  for  any 
dishonesty that may have occurred during his entry application process, and that the people who 
processed the applicant should be thoroughly reviewed.  

  
The OIC stated that he reviewed the applicant’s record and found several indicators of 
possible fraudulent enlistment.  The OIC noted that on his enlistment documents the applicant 
stated (1) that he had not consulted a mental health professional in the past seven years; (2) that 
he used marijuana only once since age 16 or in the past seven years; and (3) that he had not been 
involved in the illegal purchase, etc., of drugs.   However, the IMB reported that the applicant 
underwent  psychological  counseling  until  age  18  and  was  diagnosed  with  Bipolar  Manic 

                                                                                                                                                             
  
2    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). 

Disorder.  The IMB also noted that the applicant had used several kinds of illegal drugs since the 
age of 16.  

 
The commanding officer (CO) also recommended that the applicant be discharged and 

assigned a reenlistment code that precludes future military service.   

 
On October 15, 2003, Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) stated that 
the  applicant  failed  to  indicate  that  he  had  been  treated  for  Bipolar  Manic  Disorder  prior  to 
enlisting in the Coast Guard.  CGPC told the applicant’s OIC to advise the applicant that he was 
being  considered  for  an  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to  fraudulent 
enlistment and to offer him the opportunity to make a statement.   

 
The applicant was subsequently advised that CGPC was contemplating discharging him 
with  an  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to  fraudulent  enlistment.    The 
applicant  was  advised  that  he  could  submit  a  statement  in  his  behalf.    The  applicant 
acknowledged the proposed discharge, waived his right to make a statement, and did not object 
to being discharged from the Coast Guard.   

 
On November 11, 2003, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard 
with  an  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to  fraudulent  enlistment.    The 
applicant was discharged on December 8, 2003.   
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 23, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the  Board  deny the  applicant’s request.  The JAG stated 
that pursuant to Article 12.B.18.b.5. of the Personnel Manual, service members found to have 
procured enlistment through any material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which if 
known at the time, might have resulted in rejection, are subject to administrative discharge by 
reason of fraudulent enlistment.  In cases of fraudulent enlistment, members are discharged by 
reason of misconduct.   

 
 The  JAG  noted  that  the  Coast  Guard  discovered  the  applicant’s  fraudulent  enlistment 
during an IMB that reported the applicant’s past history of having Bipolar Manic Disorder at age 
17 for which he was hospitalized for three days and treated with psychotropic medications.  The 
IMB  also  noted  that  the  applicant  had  received  psychological  care  until  age  18  and  that  he 
admitted to having used cocaine, speed, and ecstasy until age 19.  In contrast to the information 
provided to the IMB, the JAG noted that the applicant stated in his enlistment papers that he had 
not  consulted  with  mental  health  professionals  in  the  last  7  years  and  that  he  had  only  used 
marijuana once on February 1, 2001.   

 
The JAG stated that the threshold question is whether it was proper to administratively 
separate  the  applicant  upon  discovery  of  fraudulent  enlistment  while  the  applicant  was  in  the 
PDES process.  The JAG stated that the Personnel Manual and the Physical Disability Evaluation 
System (PDES) Manual are clear that misconduct can suspend and cancel PDES processing as 

happened in the current case.  The JAG stated that both Article 2.C.11 of the PDES Manual and 
Article 12.B.1.e. of the Personnel Manual direct that: 
 

Disability statutes do not preclude disciplinary or administrative separation under 
applicable portions of the Personnel Manual . . . If a member is being processed 
for  a  disability  retirement  or  separation  and  proceedings  to  administratively 
separate the member for misconduct, disciplinary proceedings which could result 
in a punitive discharge of the member, or a unsuspended punitive discharge of the 
member is pending, final action on the disability evaluation proceedings will be 
suspended, and the non-disability action monitored by Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel Command. 

 

If the court martial or administrative process does not result in the execution of a 
punitive  or  an  administrative  discharge,  the  disability  evaluation  process  will 
resume.    If  a  punitive  or  administrative  discharge  is  executed,  the  disability 
evaluation case will be closed and the proceedings filed in the member’s official 
record.   
 
 
Furthermore,  the  JAG  stated  that  although  the  use  of  information  learned  during  the 
course  of  mental  health  treatment  to  administratively  separate  a  member  may  have  a  chilling 
effect on the Coast Guard’s ability to maintain a vital and fit military organization, there are no 
prohibitions against the practice.   

 
The JAG concluded that the applicant had failed to carry his burden of production and 

persuasion that he was not properly separated from the Coast Guard by reason of misconduct. 

 
Attached  to  the  advisory  opinion  was  a  memorandum  from  CGPC,  which  also  recom-
mended denial of the applicant’s request for a physical disability separation, but which recom-
mended that the Board correct the record to show that the applicant did not receive a DD Form 
214  upon  his  discharge.    In  this  regard,  CGPC  noted  that  Chapter  1.B.  of    COMDTINST 
M1900.4D (DD 214 Instruction) states that a “DD Form 214 will NOT be issued to members: . . 
.  who  are  being  separated  under  fraudulent  enlistment  criteria.”    However,  the  JAG  did  not 
recommend that such a correction be made.  He noted that since a DD Form 214 is already in the 
record, it should remain there because the Board has no authority to correct a record in a manner 
adverse  to  the  member’s  interests.    See  Doyle  v.  United  States,  599  F.2d  984,  1000  (1979), 
amended on other grounds 609 F.2d 990, 220 Ct. Cl. 326, cert. denied 100 S. Ct. 2961, 446 U.S. 
982, 64 L. Ed. 2d 837.   The JAG noted that the lack of a DD Form 214 would certainly add 
another barrier to the applicant’s effort to obtain DVA benefits, should he choose to seek them. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On August 28, 2007, a copy of the views of the Coast Guard was mailed to the applicant 

for him to submit a reply. The BCMR did not receive a reply from the applicant.    

 

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.   The application was timely. 

 

  

 
2.  The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 10, 2003, and approximately six 
months later underwent an IMB for Bipolar I Disorder.  The IMB reported that according to a 
review of the applicant’s medical record and social and family history, he had a past history of 
Bipolar Manic Disorder at age 17 and had been hospitalized for the condition for three days and 
treated with psychotropic medications.   

 
3.    The  applicant  failed  to  report  on  his  enlistment  medical  form  that  he  had  been 
diagnosed and treated for a Bipolar Disorder at age 17 for which he was hospitalized for three 
days.  On enlistment form 2807-2 the applicant indicated that he had never seen a psychiatrist, 
psychologist,  counselor,  or  other  mental  health  professional  for  any  reason.    Comparing  the 
applicant’s enlistment medical form to the information contained in the IMB report, the Coast 
Guard determined that the applicant had enlisted fraudulently.     

 
4.    Article  12.B.18.b.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  service  members  found  to 
have procured enlistment through any material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of 
information,  which  if  known  at  the  time,  might  have  resulted  in  rejection,  are  subject  to 
administrative  discharge  by  reason  of  fraudulent  enlistment  due  to  misconduct.    Bipolar 
disorders are listed in the Medical Manual as disqualifying for Coast Guard service. See Article 
5-B-10  of  the  Medical  Manual.    In  this  case,  the  applicant  had  to  know  that  he  had  been 
hospitalized and treated with medication for a bipolar disorder, but still marked on his enlistment 
medical form that he had never been treated by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or counselor.    He 
gained  entry  to  the  Coast  Guard  by  withholding  this  information.    The  Board  notes  that  the 
applicant does not deny that he was diagnosed with a bipolar disorder at age 17, prior to enlisting 
in the Coast Guard. 
 

5.    The  Coast  Guard  properly  terminated  PDES  processing  upon  learning  of  the 
fraudulent  enlistment and administratively  processed the  applicant  for separation by  reason of 
misconduct due to fraudulent enlistment.  As the JAG stated, both Article 2.C.11 of the PDES 
Manual  and  Article  12.B.1.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  permit  the  Coast  Guard  to  suspend 
disability proceedings while pursuing administrative separations for misconduct or disciplinary 
proceedings.   This provision further provides that if the administrative separation proceedings 
result  in  discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct,  the  PDES  processing  is  closed  and  the  medical 
board filed in the applicant’s medical record.   

 
6.    In  light  of  the  above,  the  Coast  Guard  acted  properly  when  it  suspended  disability 
proceedings in the applicant’s case and administratively discharged him for misconduct due to 

fraudulent enlistment.  The applicant was provided with the due process required by regulation 
for the administrative separation proceedings.   

 
7.  The Board agrees with the JAG that since the Coast Guard has issued the applicant a 
DD Form 214 for his active duty time, we should not act to remove it, because to do so would 
cause his record to appear worse.  The Board’s policy is not to correct a record to make it appear 
worse or to cause harm to the applicant.    
 

8.  The applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice 

in this case.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the application should be denied. 

 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG,  for correction 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

of his military record is denied.