DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-083 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   

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  29,  2008,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and  subsequently 
prepared the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 25, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to reflect that an “injury, illness or 
disease was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty.”  She further requested processing through 
the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  (PDES)  for  separation  or  retirement  by  reason  of 
physical disability with the back pay that she would have received if she had remained on active 
duty.   
 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

 

 
Personnel Records Review Board (PRRB) Decision 
 
 
Prior to filing an application with the Board, the applicant filed an application with the 
PRRB requesting that her record be corrected “to include time on active duty from [October 1, 
2003 through June 6, 2006, [1] and to reflect that an injury, illness or disease was incurred or 
aggravated in the line of duty.  [The] applicant further request[ed] . . .  proper processing and 
performance of a physical examination and evaluations for a medical separation or retirement.”     
 

                                                 
1   The PRRB ordered the applicant’s record corrected to show that the period from October 1, 2003 through June 
13, 2006 as active duty.  CGPC has corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect this period of active duty as 
directed by the PRRB. 

On  April  5,  2007,  the  Acting  Director  for  Personnel  Management  of  the  Coast  Guard 

 
approved the PRRB’s recommendation, a pertinent part of which stated the following: 
 

Recommend, with applicant’s consent, recall to extended active duty to complete 
a  thorough  physical  examination  to  determine  the  applicant’s  suitability  for 
RELAD as required by Article 12.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual . . . and Chapter 
3.A.7.c.(1) of the Medical Manual . . .  If the member is found to have incurred an 
injury, illness, or disease in the line of duty or disqualifying physical impairments 
then with the applicant’s consent to remain on active duty under Article 12.B.11.f. 
of the Personnel Manual . . . and Chapter 6.A.6.a. of the Reserve Policy Manual     
.  .  .  so  necessary  treatment  maybe  given  and  if  necessary  a  medical  board 
convened  under  Article  17.A.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
  This 
recommendation is made due to the fact that the applicant was not provided due 
process through a physical examination from the EAD order covering the period 
[October 1, 2004] through [June 6, 2004].   

. 

. 

. 

 
May 25, 2007 Separation Physical 
 
 
On  May  25,  2007,  as  directed  by  the  PRRB,  the  applicant  underwent  a  separation 
physical, which found that she met the physical standards for release to the IRR component of 
the Reserve.  The medical examination revealed that the applicant needed an eye examination 
and  that  she  had  an  abnormal  electrocardiogram  for  which  she  was  referred  to  Water  Reed 
cardiology  department  for  evaluation.      The  applicant  grew  tired  of  waiting  at  the  cardiology 
clinic  for  the  doctor  and  decided  to  go  home.    The  medical  records  note  that  in  light  of  her 
decision  to  leave  the  clinic  without  seeing  the  cardiologist,  the  risks  of  that  decision  were 
explained  to  her.    The  medical  record  also  indicates  that  the  applicant  had  uncontrolled 
hypertension (systemic) for which she was taking Hydrochlorothiazide and uncontrolled diabetes 
for which she was taking Metformin.  With regard to her diabetes the applicant was provided 
dietary counseling, foot care counseling, and weight counseling.   
 
 
A physician’s  assistant performed the  applicant’s separation physical.   He released the 
applicant from active duty without limitations and told her to follow-up with her primary care 
provider and/or the primary care clinic.   
 
 
On August 22, 2007, the Executive Secretary of the PRRB informed the applicant that 
based upon the finding of fit for duty on her May 25, 2007 separation physical, no medical board 
was required in connection with the PRRB’s order.   
 

APPLICANT’S CURRENT ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged in her BCMR petition, as she did before the PRRB, that she was 
called to extended active duty (EAD) on October 1, 2003 under title 10 of the United States Code 
and incurred or aggravated an injury, illness, or disease in the line of duty rendering her unfit for 
duty.  The applicant alleged that she was released from active duty (RELAD) and returned to the 
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) without a proper separation physical.  She asserted that she was 

 

not evaluated by  an  Initial Medical Board (IMB), or processed under the PDES, or medically 
separated or retired.   
 
 
The applicant stated that she considered her May 25, 2007 separation physical ordered by 
the PRRB to be biased, deficient, and perfunctory.  She complained about the manner in which 
she was abruptly released from active duty in June 2006 without a medical examination and that 
she did not receive transitional medical benefits until October 2006 due to the alleged failure of 
the  Coast  Guard  to  update  her  status  in  DEERS.    She  alleged  that  she  developed  diminished 
hearing, headaches, and ear pain as a result of the lack of medical care.  She further complained 
that during this period she did not have medication to treat her hypertension and diabetes.  The 
applicant stated that in March 2007 she underwent major surgery to correct an aortic abdominal 
aneurysm.  She stated that she continues to experience pain in her buttocks, thighs, and legs, as 
well as pain in other areas.   
 
She  also  expressed  her  disagreement  with  the  findings  of  the  May  25,  2007  medical 
 
examination and complained that she was not given the opportunity to agree or disagree with it.  
With regard to the separation medical examination, the applicant stated the following: 
 

I believe that the narrative regarding my vascular condition, albeit erroneous and 
as the Coast Guard interpreted it, weighed heavily on the decision to release me 
into the IRR.  I don’t believe that my other conditions were given enough consi-
deration  …  .    Overall  consideration  was  not  given  to  my  diabetes,  pes  planus, 
hypertension, and how they relate to my total physical condition.  I was diagnosed 
with atherosclerosis in the arteries of my feet in December 2006, while on TAMP.  
While  on  ADHC,2  I  was  not  even  given  a  Stress/Treadmill  test,  only  an  EKG, 
which was abnormal.  The information used in this area were my doctor’s visit on 
June  8th  in  which  he  stated  I  had  hypertensive  heart  disease  and  should  not  be 
employed.    The  cardiologist,  Dr.  A  reviewed  the  results  of  my  EKG/Stress/ 
Treadmill test from February 2007, which was the one prior to my surgery.   

With regard to her request for active duty back pay and allowances, the applicant stated 

 
 
the following: 
 

I am petitioning the BCMR for back pay and allowances I feel I am due because 
of errors and injustices associated with my release in June 2006.  I feel that if I 
were  processed  correctly,  I  should  have  remained  on  active  duty  with  pay  and 
allowances until the status of my condition had been determined as well as the 
need for surgery.  I was denied this consideration even though I was scheduled for 
a CT scan on June 27, 2006 . . .  [H]owever, I was released on June 13, 2006.  If I 
had been given the opportunity to have this CT scan done, it would have shown 
that my aneurysms had dilated to the point where surgery was required.  Because 
of all of the errors associated with this situation, it cannot be determined how long 
I would have had to remain on active duty with pay and allowances because of 

                                                 
2      Active  duty  for  health  care  (ADHC)  orders  allow  reservists  to  be  ordered  to  or  continued  on  active  duty  for 
periods of more than 30 days while being treated for (or recovering from) injuries or illnesses incurred or aggravated 
in the line of duty. Article 3.A. of the Reserve Policy Manual.   

my condition.  Additionally, it can never be known what the outcome would have 
been had I had surgery while on active duty as it relates to a referral to the IMB, 
PDES, and/or medical board.   

 
 
The applicant alleged that a CWO G was instrumental in the decision to release her from 
active duty in June 2006, as well as the determination that the applicant was not disabled based 
upon CWO G’s personal feelings rather than medical evidence.  The applicant stated CWO G’s 
bias against her was most likely due to the applicant’s refusal to work at Headquarters during the 
applicant’s ADHC period.  The applicant stated that she did not work at Headquarters because 
she “was still in pain and that it would be too much for me to work with numbness in my legs as 
well as fight traffic from Springfield to DC to work.”   
 
 
In support of her contention that she was disabled, the applicant submitted her application 
for  a  Disabled  Parking  Placard  or  License  Plate  for  Virginia,  in  which  Dr.  F,  a  Coast  Guard 
surgeon, verified on the application that the applicant was permanently limited or impaired due 
to “pelvic aneurysm surgery – claudication” that restricted her ability to walk.   
 
 
The applicant submitted an email to a CWO3 in the Reserve Management Division of 
CGPC  dated  August  30,  2007,  in  which  she  stated  that  she  had  just  received  the  medical 
documentation that she was fit for RELAD and that she disagreed with that determination.  The 
CWO3 advised the applicant that she could file an application with the BCMR.   The applicant 
also sent to the CWO3 a July 31, 2007 email that she had sent to Dr. F, who was the surgeon for 
her abdominal surgery, in which she asked him to clarify whether he had told the Coast Guard 
that she was making satisfactory progress and that she suffered minimal pain.    
 

On August 17, 2007, Dr. F responded to the applicant’s email and told her to have the 
interested authorities speak directly to him, and that he would prepare  a  memorandum on her 
behalf.    He  further  stated,  “I  do  not  know  what  they  are  reading,  but  it  is  obviously  a 
misinterpreted  note  prepared  by  resident  staff.    As  you  stated,  I  even  authorized  a  disability 
placard.”  He directed his assistant to work with the applicant to prepare a letter to her command 
in support of her effort to obtain disability separation or retirement from the Coast Guard.   
 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Decision  
 
 
On November 26, 2007, the DVA granted the applicant a 100% disability rating for an 
“infrarenal  aorta  abdominal  aneurysm  post  surgical  repair  effective  from  June  14,  2006.    The 
applicant  underwent  a  subsequent    VA  examination  to  determine  the  current  residuals  of  her 
aortic aneurysm, which was then rated at 0% disabling.     
 
 
The  DVA  granted  the  applicant  a  50%  disability  rating  for  a  total  abdominal 
hysterectomy  with  bilateral  salpingo-oophorectomy,  effective  from    June  14,  2006;  a  20% 
disability  rating  for  diabetes  mellitus,  type  II,  effective  from  June  14,  2006;  a  20%  disability 
rating for peripheral vascular disease, right lower extremity effective from December 6, 2006.   
 
 
The  DVA  granted  the  applicant  a  10%  disability  rating  for  each  of  the  following 
conditions  with  an  effective  date  of  June  14,  2006:    right  carpal  tunnel  syndrome,  bilateral 

tinnitus with history of cerumen  impaction, diverticulosis with gastroesophageal reflux disease, 
and hypertension.  She was also granted a 10% disability rating with an effective date of January 
16, 2007, for left carpal tunnel syndrome.    
 
 
The DVA granted the applicant a 0% disability with an effective date of June 14, 2006 
for bilateral eye keratoconus, left lower extremity peripheral vascular disease, and bilateral pes 
planus.  
 
 
hyperlipidemia, and sinusitis.   
 

The  DVA  denied  service  connection  for  bilateral  hammertoes,  bilateral  hemorrhoids, 

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S SERVICE HISTORY 

 

As discussed in the PRRB decision, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on 
October 4, 1985 and has continued to be affiliated with the Reserve without a break in service. 
She was involuntarily ordered to active duty for the period October 1, 2003 through September 
30, 2004 under title 10 of the United States Code.   

 
On  October  1,  2004,  the  applicant  entered  into  a  voluntary  EAD  assignment  at  the 
Telecommunications and Information Systems Command, Alexandria, which ended on June 6, 
2006.  Subsequently, active duty special work (ADSW) orders were authorized for the applicant 
for the period from June 6, 2006 to September 30, 2006.  These orders were canceled on June 13, 
2006.    Her  DD  214  records  “completion  of  required  active  duty”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 24, 2008, the Judge Advocate General  (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted a 
memorandum in which he adopted the facts and analysis provided by CGPC and asked that the 
Board  accept  CGPC  comments  as  the  advisory  opinion.    CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board 
grant the following relief to the applicant: 

 
The applicant should be afforded the opportunity to present a formal rebuttal to 
the findings of the physical examination in accordance with the [Article 3.B.5. of 
the Medical Manual].   

 

 

Upon review of the case, [CGPC] shall make a determination in accordance with 
[Article  3.B.5.  of  the  Medical  Manual].    If  additional  medical  evaluation  is 
required,  the  applicant  should  be  offered  Reserve  Ready  Management  Period 
(RMP)[3]  order  for  such  testing.    If  it  is  determined  that  the  applicant  was  not 
qualified for separation, a medical board shall be initiated.  If subsequently found 

                                                 
3   An RMP is an additional inactive duty period authorized in excess of scheduled IDT drills to accomplish training 
preparation or unit administration and  maintenance  functions, such as  medical and dental readiness examinations 
and participation in enlisted servicewide examinations.  An RMP covers a period from a minimum of 3 hours to a 
maximum of 24 hours.   

eligible for disability retirement or separation, such shall be back dated to June 
14, 2006. 
 
In recommending the above relief, CGPC admitted that the Coast Guard committed an 
error in 2006 when it released the applicant from active duty without conducting the required 
medical examination.  CGPC noted that the Coast Guard has complied with the PRRB’s deter-
mination by returning the applicant to active duty and conducting the required physical examina-
tion.  CGPC noted that the physical examination determined that the applicant was fit for release 
from active duty.  CGPC further stated the following: 

 
The applicant alleges bias in the processing of her physical examination and she 
further contends that information presented in her official medical records relative 
to her post surgical status was inaccurate … .   There is no evidence that the Coast 
Guard provided the applicant with a copy of her approved physical examination 
or  a  definitive  examination  of  her  status  until  August  22,  2007  …  .    She  was 
released  back  into  the  IRR  on  July  23,  2007,  though  her  physical  was  not 
approved until July 25,  2007.  The Coast Guard should have properly and in a 
timely manner advised the applicant of her finding of fit for duty, and, in accor-
dance with [the Medical Manual] the applicant should have been advised of the 
procedure to object to the finding of fitness for RELAD.  Rather, the applicant 
was improperly advised that her only recourse was through the BCMR.  The nor-
mal procedure relative to a rebuttal of the findings may entail additional consulta-
tions,  medical  records  and  evaluations  to  confirm  or  refute  the  elements  of  the 
evaluation that the applicant objects to.  Since over one year has passed since the 
last physical examination, such objective evaluation is more difficult to obtain.    

 

 

The  applicant  states  that  the  information  used  in  determining  her  fitness  for 
RELAD was based upon erroneous medical record entries by Dr. [F] …   Infor-
mation [in Dr. F’s email] references a possible misreading of the medical records.  
However,  it  falls  short  of  issuing  a  written  correction  to  the  official  records.  
Additionally, the applicant’s correlation between Dr. F’s certifying a permanent 
disability for the applicant’s Virginia disabled parking permit and the applicant’s 
official records is not determinative of a permanent physical disability rating by 
the  Coast  Guard.    This  is  additionally  compounded  by  the  subsequent  DVA 
downgrading of the applicant’s disability rating.    

The applicant presents the DVA’s disability  determination … in support of her 
application …  The military disability system determines unfitness for duty and 
then rates only the extent that the unfitting medical condition or conditions pre-
vent 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 evalu-
ee’s employability status and earning capacity.  Accordingly, DVA ratings are not 
determinative of the issues involved in military disability ratings determinations 
…  Fluctuation in ratings over time is not unexpected and the applicant’s current 
physical disabilities are being addressed through the appropriate venue.  Addition-
ally,  the  applicant’s  primary  basis  for  contesting  the  physical  examination  is 

 

precipitated upon her impairment relative to the aorta abdominal aneurysm, which 
was subsequently rated at 0 percent by the DVA.  The DVA rating was down-
graded at the conclusion of the six-month post surgery period.   

[CGPC] has reviewed the information presented by the applicant in support of her 
BCMR application under the purview of a rebuttal to the findings of her physical 
evaluation . . .  However, based upon the information presented it is preferred that 
the  applicant  present  a  formal  written  rebuttal  to  the  findings  of  the  physical 
evaluation  . . .  including written documentation challenging the contents of [Dr. 
F’s July 2, 2007 post surgical evaluation], which is the primary contested element 
of the physical findings.  If it is further determined that the applicant was not fit 
for  RELAD  as  indicated  in  her  RELAD  physical,  the  applicant  should  be 
processed through the [PDES].  If [the applicant is] subsequently found eligible 
for disability retirement or separation, such shall be back-dated to June 14, 2006. 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 
 On August 4, 2008, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard,  which  appeared  to  be  her  formal  rebuttal  to  the  findings  of  her  May  2007  separation 
physical.  In accordance with the recommendation in the advisory opinion, to which the applicant 
agreed, the formal rebuttal to the findings of the separation physical are to be submitted to CGPC 
for their review.  The Board will return a copy of the rebuttal to the applicant so that she can 
forward it to CGPC for their review and any further action, if necessary.   
 

 

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
 
Article  12.B.6.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  when  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.  When the member agrees he or she 
is  physically  qualified  for  separation,  the  original  of  Standard  Form  88  shall  be  sent  to 
Commander, (CGPC-adm) along with the terminated health record. 
 
 
Article 12.B.6.c. states that if a member objects to a finding of physically qualified for 
separation,  the  Standard  Form  88  together  with  the  member’s  written  objections  shall  be  sent 
immediately  to  CGPC-epm-1  for  review.    If  necessary  the  member  may  remain  in  service 
beyond the enlistment expiration date.  
 
Coast Guard Medical Manual 
 
 
Article  3.B.5.a.  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  any  member  undergoing  separation 
from  the  service  who  disagrees  with  the  assumption  of  fitness  for  duty  and  claims  to  have  a 
physical disability shall submit written objections within 10 days of signing the chronological 
record of service to CGPC.  The member is responsible for submitting copies of the following 

along with written objections:  (1) report of medical examination (SF-88); (2) Report of Medical 
History  (SF-93);  signed  copy  of  chronological  record  of  service  (CG-4057);  (4)  appropriate 
consultations and reports; and (5) other pertinent documentation.   
 

Article 3.B.5.b.  states that consultations shall be obtained to thoroughly evaluate all the 
problems or objections indicated by the evaluee.  Consultations obtained at the examinee’s own 
expense from a civilian source shall also be included with the report.   
 

Article 3.B.5.c. states that CGPC will evaluate each case and, based upon the information 
submitted, take one of the following actions:  (1) find separation appropriate, in which case the 
individual will be so notified and the normal separation process completed; (2) find separation 
inappropriate,  in  which  case  the  entire  record  will  be  returned  and  appropriate  action 
recommended; or (3) request additional documentation before making a determination.   
 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual 
 

Article 2.A.15. of the PDES Manual defines “fit for duty” as “[t]he status of a member 
who  is  physically  and  mentally  able  to  perform  the  duties  of  office,  grade,  rank  or  rating.”  
Article 3.F.1.c. of the Medical Manual stated the following: 

 
Fitness for Duty.  Members are ordinarily considered fit for duty unless they have 
a physical impairment (or impairments) which interferes with the performance of 
the duties of their grade or rating.  A determination of fitness or unfitness depends 
upon  the  individual’s  ability  to  reasonably  perform  those  duties.    Members 
considered temporarily or permanently unfit for duty shall be referred to an Initial 
Medical Board for appropriate disposition. 

 

Article 3 of the PDES Manual provides that if a member’s fitness for continued duty is in 
question, an IMB of two medical officers shall conduct a thorough medical examination, review 
all  available  records,  and  issue  a  report  with  a  narrative  description  of  the  member’s  impair-
ments, an opinion as to the member’s fitness for duty and potential for further military service, 
and if the member is found unfit, a referral to a Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB).  The 
member is advised about the PDES and permitted to submit a response to the IMB report.  
 
United States Code 
 

Title  10  U.S.C.  §  1203  (Regular  and  members  on  active  duty  for  more  than  30  days 
separation)  sets  forth  the  requirement  for  a  separation  or  retirement  by  reason  of  physical 
disability upon a determination of the Secretary concerned.4  
 

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: 
                                                 
4   The Commandant under delegation from the Secretary has set forth the rules in the PDES Manual to determine 
whether a member should be separated with severance pay or retired by reason of physical disability. 

 

application was timely. 

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

 
2.  The applicant is a reservist who served continuously on active duty from October 1, 
2003 until June 13, 2006 under various active duty orders.  Toward the end of her active duty 
period, the applicant was given ADSW orders for a period from June 7, 2006 until September 30, 
2006.  However on June 13, 2006, the Coast Guard released the applicant from active duty and 
canceled  the  remainder  of  the  ADSW  orders.    The  Coast  Guard  released  the  applicant  from 
active  duty  without  a  separation  physical  and,  according  to  the  applicant,  without  health  care 
transition  benefits.    The  applicant  indicated  that  in  October  2006,  she  obtained  health  care 
benefits and, in fact, underwent surgery in March 2007.  Eventually, she filed an application with 
the PRRB for correction of her military record to show that she incurred an injury, illness, or 
disease in the line of duty and to show that she was processed through the PDES.  The PRRB 
found that the applicant had not been given a separation physical as required by Article 12.B.6.a. 
of the Personnel Manual.  Therefore, the PRRB directed the Coast Guard to recall the applicant 
to active duty, with her consent, for the purpose of having her undergo a separation physical.  
The  separation  physical  occurred  on  May  25,  2007,  and  the  applicant  was  found  fit  for  duty, 
although  several  medical  conditions  were  noted  on  the  medical  evaluation  report  form.    On 
August 22, 2007, the PRRB informed the applicant that based upon the findings of her May 25, 
2007 separation physical the Coast Guard was not required to hold a medical board in her case.  
In February 2008, the applicant filed an application with the BCMR requesting the same relief 
that she had requested before the PRRB, which was that her record be corrected to show that she 
incurred or aggravated an injury, illness, or disease in the line of duty that was unfitting, and 
therefore, she should have been processed through the PDES.   

 
3.  The  applicant underwent the separation physical required by the Personnel Manual 
and ordered by the PRRB in May 2007.  She was found fit for duty.  However, the Coast Guard 
admitted  in  the  advisory  opinion,  and  the  Board  agrees,  that  it  committed  an  error  by  not 
immediately informing the applicant that she was found fit for duty as a result of her May 2007 
separation physical and by not informing the applicant of the procedure for objecting to the fit 
for duty finding.  In this regard, Article 12.B.6. of the Personnel Manual and Article 3.B.5. of the 
Medical Manual allow a member to object to the findings of a separation physical.  Furthermore, 
both the Personnel Manual and Medical Manual state that if a member objects to a finding of 
physically  qualified  for  separation,  the  Standard  Form  88  (medical  evaluation  report  form) 
together with the member’s written objections and any other evidence shall be sent immediately 
to CGPC for review.  The Coast Guard admitted that it did not provide the applicant with a copy 
of  the  May  25,  2007  separation  physical  until  after  her  release  from  ADHC  or  with  the 
opportunity to object to the separations findings until just recently.    

 
4.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard that the applicant should be given 
an  opportunity  to  submit  a  formal  written  rebuttal  objecting  to  the  fitness  for  duty  finding  to 
CGPC  for  review  in  accordance  with  the  Medical  and  Personnel  Manuals.    The  Board  also 
agrees with the advisory opinion that if CGPC determines that additional medical evaluation is 
required the applicant should be offered orders for a Reserve Ready Management Period for such 
testing.  If  after  reviewing  the  applicant’s  rebuttal  and  other  pertinent  records  and  documents, 

CGPC determines that the applicant was not qualified for separation, a medical board should be 
initiated.  If a medical board determines that the applicant was unfit for duty on June 13, 2006, 
the Coast Guard should continue PDES processing of her case.   

 
5.  The applicant stated that she agreed with the advisory opinion.  However she submit-
ted what appeared to be her formal rebuttal to the separation physical as her reply to the advisory 
opinion.  The applicant should have sent her rebuttal to CGPC.  Therefore, the Board will return 
a copy of the applicant’s rebuttal to her and direct that she submit it to CGPC in accordance with 
the Board’s order in this case.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
6.  In addition to the allegations made above, the applicant made various others in her 
application about her treatment while on active duty.   In light of the remedy proposed by the 
Coast Guard, which will be directed by the Board, a decision on the allegations raised by the 
applicant with respect to her fitness for duty would be premature.  If the applicant is not satisfied 
with CGPC’s and/or the PDES’s decision after review of her formal written rebuttal, she may file 
a request with this Board for further consideration.   
 
 

7.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the relief discussed above. 
 
 
 

 
 
record is granted in part as follows:   
 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her  military 

The applicant shall submit a written formal rebuttal to CGPC objecting to the findings of 
her May 2007 separation physical examination in accordance with Article 3.B.5. of the Medical 
Manual.  She shall do so within 30 days from the date of this decision.   

 
CGPC shall review the applicant’s rebuttal as required by Article 3.B.5. of the Medical 
Manual.  If CGPC determines that further medical evaluations or consultations are necessary, it 
may  order  the  applicant  to  a  period  of  inactive  or  active  duty  for  the  purpose  of  such 
consultations  or  evaluations.    If  after  review  of  the  applicant’s  rebuttal  and  any  additional 
medical consultations and evaluations, CGPC determines that the applicant was not qualified for 
release from active duty, a medical board will be initiated.  If the medical board determines that 
the  applicant  was  unfit,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  continue  processing  the  applicant  through  the 
PDES.  If ultimately determined to be physically unfit for continued service as of June 13, 2006, 
she shall be separated or retired from the Coast Guard retroactive to June 14, 2006, and she shall 
be paid corresponding back pay and allowances subject to appropriate off-sets.   If after review 
of the evidence, CGPC determines that the applicant was fit for duty on June 13, 2006, the date 
of her release from active duty, no corrective action is necessary.  

 
The Coast Guard shall complete its processing under this order within 180 days from the 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

date of receipt of the applicant’s rebuttal.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Robert F. Parker 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young