DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-132 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 
 

 

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 May 16, 2007, 
upon receipt of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare 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 February 21, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record to show that she was evalu-
ated by a medical board, processed under the Coast Guard’s Physical Disability Evaluation Sys-
tem (PDES), and separated because of a physical disability on February 3, 2007.  She alleged 
that when she was being hazed, her crewmates threw her off a pier, she hit a wooden piling, and 
became unconscious.  She stated that she now has significant medical problems because of this 
incident.    In  support  of  her  allegation,  the  applicant  submitted  copies  of  her  medical  records, 
which are included in the summary below. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
February 3, 2007.   Upon completing training, she was assigned to a Coast Guard station. 

On February 4, 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years, through 

 
On May 16, 2003, the applicant sought treatment for a headache and an abrasion on her 
left arm.  She told the doctor that she had been thrown off a pier into a boat slip and hit her head 
on some wood and scraped her left arm.  The doctor noted, “Denies LOC,” indicating that she 
told him she had not suffered a loss of consciousness during the incident.  He further wrote that 
although she had a contusion on her head, she appeared well and healthy and testing showed that 
all her nerves were intact.  She was prescribed Tylenol for her headache. 

 

On January 21, 2004, the applicant sought treatment for back pain and pain in both knees.  
X-rays showed no abnormalities.  She was diagnosed with a strain and prescribed Celebrex and 
physical therapy. 

 
On February  23, 2004, a physical therapist reported that the applicant showed “signs of 
postural dysfunction and lumbar instability with extreme tightness of hip flexors and hamstrings.  
She is also weak in abdominal muscles.”  The physical therapist noted that the applicant said she 
was very sore as a result of attending her kick boxing class and noted that she would likely need 
only two physical therapy sessions. 

 
On August 25, 2006, the applicant sought treatment for pain in her left wrist.  An x-ray 
showed there were no fractures or bone injuries.  She was diagnosed with tendonitis, prescribed 
ibuprofen and a brace, and advised not to do weight-bearing exercises, such as pushups or lifting.  

 
On  September  1,  2006,  the  applicant  had  a  follow-up  appointment  for  her  left-hand 

tendonitis.  She was told not to do pushups or lifting. 

 
On October 2, 2006, a health service specialist, second class (HS2) at the applicant’s unit 
noted that the applicant was fit for full duty and to attend “A” School.  The HS2 noted that the 
applicant had a “prior history of left hand tendonitis.  Has been treated by PCM and Orthopedic.  
Member reports no complaints today, left hand with good ROM.  No obvious distress noted.” 

 
On October 16, 2006, the applicant began training at “A” School to become a gunner’s 
mate.  However, pain in her left wrist prevented her from performing the training.  On November 
30, 2006, an orthopedist examined the wrist.  He found that she had pain on abduction and exten-
sion of the thumb, pain in the thumb, and pain over the radial styloid.  Her x-ray results were 
“entirely normal.”  He diagnosed her with “de Quervain tenosynovitis” of the wrist, with pain in 
the  “anatomical snuffbox.”  He ordered an MRI to check her navicula and told her to continue 
taking Motrin, wearing a brace, and doing range of motion exercises each day.   

 
On December 4, 2006, an MRI of the applicant’s left wrist indicated that the wrist was 
normal, with “no radiographic abnormality seen in the anatomic snuffbox or within the navicular 
bone,” although there was “small chronic osteochondral erosion along the proximal surface of 
the triquetrum.”  On December 5, 2006, an MRI of the applicant’s left hip showed no abnor-
malities in her hip but did indicate that she had a benign ovarian cyst. 

 
On January 1, 2006, the orthopedist noted that an MRI had shown that there was nothing 
wrong  with  the  applicant’s  hip  or  pelvis  bones.    He  diagnosed  her  with  trochanteric  bursitis, 
which she had suffered since she was pregnant in the spring of 2006.  He noted, however, that 
the baby was seven months old and that such pregnancy-related bursitis normally ends two or 
three months after giving birth.  As the applicant was complaining of problems with her ankles, 
knees, and shoulders, as well as her hips and left wrist, the orthopedist noted that he would refer 
her to a rheumatologist. 

 
On January 5, 2006, the orthopedist again reviewed the applicant’s MRI and noted that 
the only abnormality was “a minor erosion in the triquetrum but this is not where she is having 

pain.”  He stated that the de Quervain tenosynovitis in her left wrist should be treated surgically.  
He noted that he had referred her to another doctor “for her back and multiple other complaints 
of her hip.” 

 
On January 8, 2007, the HS2 at the applicant’s station noted that she had been released 
from “A” School because she could not perform the gunner’s mate training due to wrist pain.  
The HS2 noted that she could not perform even limited duty functions such as telephone watch-
stander because she could not type without experiencing wrist pain.  The HS2 also noted that the 
applicant was scheduled to undergo wrist surgery on January 18, 2007. 

 
On January 11, 2007, the applicant underwent a physical examination to determine her 
fitness for duty because she had been “on and off SIQ [sick in quarters] for the past 2 months.”  
The doctor noted that she told him her wrist pain had begun  when she  was doing pushups in 
September 2006.  She also told him that she had suffered chronic hip and back pain for more 
than  three  years  ever  since  she  was  thrown  into  the  water  by  some  crewmates  and  landed  on 
some “wood bars.”  Her “back pain began to get much worse after she fell a few times on her 
boat while underway” and her knee had also begun to hurt.  The doctor noted that she should 
have an MRI of her spine, and that she was fit for limited duty only for 30 days, during which 
she was to do desk work only, with no sea duty, lifting, climbing, or sports.  He reported to her 
command  that  she  was  “not  fit  for  separation”  and  should  be  reassigned  to  a  base  where  she 
could get better treatment.  In addition, he recommended that the command convene a medical 
board to evaluate her and process her through the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). 

 

 
On January 30, 2007, the applicant and her command signed the following statement on a 

CG-3307 (“Page 7”) for her record: 

 
I,  [applicant’s  name],  desire  to  be  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  my  normal  expiration  of 
active obligated service date.  I understand I will not be eligible for further follow-up studies or 
treatment at a U.S. Uniformed Services medical facility or for disability benefits under laws the 
Coast  Guard  administers,  and  any  further  treatment  or  benefits  would  be  under  the  Veterans’ 
Administration’s jurisdiction. 
 
On January 30, 2007, the applicant also signed a CG-4057 form for her record but did not 
indicate whether she agreed that she was either reasonably fit to perform her duties or had a high 
expectation of being so in the near future as a result of her surgery. 

 
On  February  3,  2007,  the  applicant  was  released  to  inactive  duty  in  the  Reserve  upon 
“completion of required active service.”  Her DD 214 shows that her character of service was 
honorable and that she is eligible to reenlist.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On July 14, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The 
JAG adopted the findings and recommendation in a memorandum on the case prepared by the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 

CGPC stated that Article 12.B.11.f. of the Personnel Manual allows the Coast Guard to 
retain a member on active duty past the end of enlistment for the purpose of evaluating their dis-
abilities and processing them under the PDES, but that a member has a right to waive evaluation 
and be separated.  CGPC further noted that under Articles 2.A.4.b.(1)(a) and (c) of the Medical 
Manual, the Coast Guard may not compel members to undergo medical treatment, procedures, or 
examinations, but may administratively separate those who refuse to submit. 

 
CGPC stated that prior to her separation, the applicant was being treated for numerous 
conditions  that  had  not  been  fully  evaluated  or  resolved.    However,  instead  of  remaining  on 
active duty to allow the Coast Guard to do so, she elected to be separated and waived her right to 
further  evaluation/processing  under  the  PDES.    CGPC  stated  that  in  seeking  separation,  the 
applicant also waived her right to further medical care and completion of her separation physical. 

 
CGPC concluded that the applicant “was afforded the opportunity to complete her physi-
cal examination prior to separation and for the Coast Guard to potentially process her through the 
PDES.”  However, she “voluntarily waived any further processing and treatment in accordance 
with service policies.”  Therefore, CGPC argued, she suffered no error or injustice in being sepa-
rated without PDES processing. 

 
In support of these allegations, CGPC submitted the following statement from the HS2 at 

the applicant’s unit: 

 
With the discovery of the many ailments that [the applicant] appeared to be suffering from, she 
was placed under the care of a specialist by her primary care manager.  After several specialty vis-
its, it was determined by myself and the command that this member needed to be evaluated by a 
military medical officer to determine fitness for duty and medical board possibilities.   
 
An appointment was made with [Dr. R] Aviation Medical Officer Group Galveston, TX, on 11 Jan 
2007.  [The applicant] expressed a concern about the lengthy process that a med board could take 
and  that  she  wanted  to  “get  out”  by  her  normal  assigned  time;  however,  she  did  agree  to  the 
appointment that was scheduled for her. 
 
[The applicant] attended her appointment in Galveston, and it was determined that this member 
was fit for limited duty (desk work only) and not fit for separation; member was told to return in 
30 days (12 Feb 2007) or sooner for a follow-up exam.  It was also recommended by the medical 
officer that member be administratively transferred to Galveston for further treatment and to pro-
ceed with a medical board process.  All of this was explained to the member upon her return from 
Galveston. 
 
On 30 January 2007 [the applicant] signed a page 7 stating her desire to be separated from the 
Coast Guard on her “normal expiration of active obligated service date.”  It was explained to [her] 
that  she  would  not  be  entitled  to  any  further  treatments  or  disability  benefits  once  she  got  out.  
Member signed that she understood and wanted to proceed with the discharge. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On November 9, 2007, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the 
Coast Guard.   The applicant alleged that she was misled and pressured  by her  command into 
signing the release on January 30, 2007.  She alleged that she was threatened by the executive 
officer of her unit and two chief petty officers, who said they would call her a liar and “impose 

unfavorable assignments that would cause me to not be able to fulfill my duties as a mother” if 
she sought PDES processing. 
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 12.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that “[b]efore discharge ..., retirement, 
or release from active  duty …, every  enlisted member …, shall be  given a complete physical 
examination.  …    The  examination  results  shall  be  recorded  on  Standard  Form  88.”    Article 
12.B.6.b. provides that “[w]hen the physical examination is completed and the member is found 
physically qualified for separation, the member will be advised and required to sign a statement 
on the reverse side of the Chronological Record of Service, CG-4057, agreeing or disagreeing 
with the findings.”   
 

Article 12.B.6.c. provides that when “a member objects to a finding of physically quali-
fied for separation, the Standard 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.”  

 
Article 12.B.6.d. provides that when a member has a medical condition that disqualifies 
her for continued service, the Coast Guard convenes a medical board to evaluate the condition 
and the member is retained on active duty under Article 12.B.11.f.1., which states the following: 

 
a.  An  active  duty  member  whose  enlistment  expires  while  he  or  she  suffers  from  a  disease  or 
injury incident to service and not due to his or her own misconduct and who needs medical care or 
hospitalization may remain in the Service after the normal enlistment expiration date with his or 
her consent, which should be in writing and signed by the ill member, and recorded in accordance 
with  the  Personnel  and  Pay  Procedures  Manual,  PSCINST  M1000.2  (series).  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  ascertains  the  disease  or  injury  is  of  a  character  that  prevents 
recovery  to  such  an  extent.  Tacit  consent  may  be  assumed  if  mental  or  physical  incapacity 
prevents  informed  consent.  A  member  in  this  category  ordinarily  will  remain  up  to  six  months 
after the enlistment expiration date; however, the Commandant may authorize further retention on 
proper recommendation accompanied by the supporting facts (14 U.S.C. 366 and Article 12.B.6.). 
 
b. If the member desires separation, it shall be effected, provided the member signs this entry on 
an Administrative Remarks, CG-3307, in the PDR, witnessed by an officer, when examined for 
separation: 
 

I, [Member’s name], desire to be separated from the Coast Guard on my normal 
expiration of active obligated service date. I understand I will not be eligible for 
further  follow-up  studies  or  treatment  at  a  U.S.  Uniformed  Services  medical 
facility or disability benefits under laws the Coast Guard administers, and any 
further  treatment  or  benefits  would  be  under  the  Veterans'  Administration’s 
jurisdiction. 

 
Article  12.B.11.f.1.d.  states  that  a  command  shall  not  discharge  a  member  undergoing 
PDES processing unless the member desires separation and signs a waiver such as that shown in 
paragraph b. 

 

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  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  at  the  time  her 
enlistment ended, the applicant suffered from various medical conditions that rendered her unfit 
for separation.  A military medical officer found her unfit for separation and advised her com-
mand to convene a medical evaluation board to process her under the PDES.  However, on Janu-
ary 30, 2007, the applicant voluntarily waived her right to further medical evaluation, treatment, 
and disability benefits under the PDES because she wanted to be separated upon the end of her 
enlistment on February 3, 2007.  Full PDES processing takes at least a few months to complete 
and sometimes up to a full year.  The record shows that her command followed the correct pro-
cedures  under  Article  12.B.11.f.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  when  she  declined  to  remain  on 
active duty past her end of enlistment so that she could be fully evaluated and processed under 
the PDES. 

Although the applicant alleged that she was threatened and coerced into waiving 
her  rights,  she  submitted  no  evidence  whatsoever  to  support  her  allegation.    The  regulations 
required the applicant either to waive her right to PDES processing and disability benefits or to 
remain on active duty so that the Coast Guard could evaluate her medical conditions in accor-
dance with the PDES and, if necessary, separate her with disability benefits.  The applicant chose 
to waive her rights rather than  remain on active duty so that her medical conditions could be 
evaluated under the PDES.  The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
that  her  separation  on  February  3,  2007,  without  PDES  processing  or  disability  benefits  was 
erroneous or unjust.1 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 

                                                 
1 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (finding that for purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. 
§ 1552,  “injustice”  is  “treatment  by  military  authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice,  but  is  not  technically 
illegal”); see Decision of the Deputy General Counsel in BCMR Docket No. 2002-040. 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen   

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

military record is denied.