DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2010-001 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.   The Chair docketed the case after receiving the  applicant’s 
completed  application  on  October  1,  2009,  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).  

 
This  final  decision,  dated  July  15,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant,  a  health  services  technician  who  was  released  from  active  duty  into  the 
Reserve on July 24, 2008, asked the Board to correct her record to  reinstate her on active duty 
and to order the Coast Guard to process her under the Coast Guard’s Physical Disability Evalua-
tion System (PDES) prior to her release from active duty (RELAD). 

 
The applicant alleged that during her last year on active duty, her illnesses became aggra-
vated and her health deteriorated significantly just before her RELAD.  She alleged medical per-
sonnel asked to retain her on active duty and to initiate a medical board to evaluate her, but the 
Personnel Command refused.  Instead, she was discharged and told to seek treatment through the 
Department  of  Veterans’  Affairs  (DVA).    Once  she  was  assigned  to  a  clinic  as  a  reservist,  the 
clinic  administrator  initiated  PDES  processing.    However,  the  applicant  alleged,  whatever  the 
result of her PDES processing, it should be backdated as of the date of her RELAD. 

 
The applicant alleged that during her last year on active duty, she was frequently absent 
from  work  to  attend  medical  appointments,  visit  an  emergency  room,  or  convalesce  from  sur-
geries and so she was unable to perform her duties because of her many gynecological and gas-
trointestinal  illnesses.    Because  her  conditions  did  not  respond  to  treatment,  evaluation  by  a 
medical  board  was  recommended  by  her  superiors,  but  none  was  performed  before  she  was 
RELAD.  The applicant alleged that she was RELAD while she was convalescing from a second 
surgery.  She argued that she should have been retained on active duty and retired with at least a 

 

 

30% disability rating.  In the alternative, she argued, she should have been placed on the tempo-
rary disabled retired list (TDRL). 

 
The applicant alleged that prior to being RELAD, she suffered from the following unfit-

ting conditions: 

 

Gynecological conditions:   
 
  Severe endometriosis in Stage 4 (involving diaphragm, lungs and liver area spots, appendix, 

large and small intestines, cul de sac, and reproductive organs) 

  Severe adhesive disease of the abdomen and pelvis – frozen pelvis  
  Dysmenorrhea 
  Menorrhagia 
  Symptomatic Persistent large ovarian cysts 
  Open pelvic laparotomy residuals 
  Salpingitis 
  Chronic salpingoophoritis 
  Oopohoritis 
 

The applicant alleged that as a result of these gynecological conditions, she suffers severe 
chronic  pelvic,  abdominal,  and  rectal  pain;  excessive  bleeding  during  or  out  of  menses;  severe 
menstrual  cramps,  anemia,  and  infertility.    In  addition,  she  stated  that  the  frozen  pelvis  and 
severe adhesion disease of the abdomen and pelvis caused an internal anatomical distortion with 
organs  fused  together  and  an  extrinsic  compressed  rectum,  and  the  open  pelvic  laparotomy 
caused  an  intestinal  obstruction  which  aggravated  her  other  symptoms  and  caused  severe  pain 
and impairment of her organs. 
 
Gastrointestinal conditions: 
 
  Severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) 
  Chronic constipation alternating with diarrhea 
  Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) 
  Chronic gastritis 
 
 

Impaired digestion and symptomatic hiatal hernia 

The applicant alleged that as a result of these gastrointestinal conditions, she suffers from 
nausea,  bloating,  difficulty  while  passing  gases  and  feces,  severe  pain  with  bowel  movements, 
impaired digestion, severe stomach ache, epigastric pain with a burning sensation, chronic reflux, 
dizziness, fatigue, and vomiting of bile when her intestines were obstructed. 
 

The applicant alleged that at the time of her RELAD she also suffered from several other 
chronic  unfitting  conditions,  which  were  not  properly  evaluated  or  treated  while  she  was  on 
active duty because all of her time was taken up with her other medical problems. 

 
The applicant alleged that she underwent a physical examination that was conducted prior 
to  her  RELAD  to  determine  whether  PDES  processing  should  be  initiated,  but  it  was  used, 

 

 

instead, as a discharge examination.  She was found fit for discharge but did not sign a CG-4057 
and so never agreed that she was fit for separation. 

 
The applicant submitted copies of her numerous medical records to support her claims as 
well  as  statements  from  her  supervisor,  the  Clinic  Administrator  at  Xxxxxx;  Dr.  R,  a  civilian 
contractor at the clinic; and Dr. M of the U.S. Public Health Service.  A cursory review reveals 
that her medical records reflect the symptoms and diagnoses claimed in the application and the 
statements  show  that  her  condition  worsened  significantly  during  her  last  year  on  active  duty, 
that the clinic attempted to initiate PDES processing in May 2008, two months before her sched-
uled RELAD date, and that the Personnel Command refused to retain her on active duty so that 
the PDES processing could be completed because she had declined to reenlist so that she could 
be transferred when her tour of duty in Xxxxxx ended. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 19, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief.  In so doing, he adopted the facts and analysis 
provided  in  an  enclosed  memorandum  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service  Center 
(PSC).  The PSC stated  that although no  relief should  be  granted, the  applicant’s current com-
mand may take mitigating action. 
 

The PSC stated that on March 24, 2008, Dr. R, who conducted the applicant’s physical 
examination found that she was qualified for military service and had no significant or disquali-
fying defects.  Thereafter, HSC B, the approving official, found that she met the physical stan-
dards for being RELAD. 

 
The PSC stated that the applicant’s request for a four-month extension on active duty was 
disapproved because she had refused to obligate sufficient service to be transferred to Air Station 
Xxxxxx and requested separation in  lieu of her transfer orders.  Therefore, she was discharged 
when her enlistment ended. 

 
The  PSC  stated  that  upon  her  RELAD,  the  applicant  was  affiliated  with  the  Selected 
Reserve and completed two drills in January 2009, four drills in February 2009, and one drill in 
October 2009. 

 
The  PSC  admitted  that  beginning  in  July  2007,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  and 
treated for conditions “that placed her in an apparent uncomfortable status” and that she “should 
have requested to enter the PDES process at this time, as she was on active duty upon the onset 
of her ailments.”  The PSC stated, however, that instead of requesting PDES processing, she  
 

continued in a presumed fit for full duty status and was voluntarily separated from the service in 
accordance with 10 USC 61.  The disability law that provides for disability retirement or separa-
tion is designed to compensate a  member  whose  military service is terminated due  to a  physical 
disability that has rendered him or her unfit for continued duty.  That law and this disability sys-
tem are not to be misused to bestow compensation benefits on those who are voluntarily or man-
datorily  retiring  or  separating  and  have  theretofore  drawn  pay  and  allowances,  received  promo-
tions,  and  continued  on  unlimited  active  duty  status  while  tolerating  physical  impairments  that 
have not actually precluded Coast Guard service. 

 

 

 
 
The  PSC  stated  that  because  there  was  no  medical  board  evaluation,  the  applicant  was 
presumed fit for duty.  The PSC noted that the applicant requested separation in lieu of executing 
her  transfer  orders  from  Xxxxxx  to  Xxxxxx.    Therefore,  her  separation  was  voluntary  and  not 
mandatory or due to disability. 
 
 
Therefore,  the  PSC  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  no  relief.    However,  the  PSC 
noted  that  the  applicant  was  separated  form  the  service  with  a  condition  that  was  diagnosed 
while she was serving on active duty  and entitled to  basic pay.  Therefore, the PSC stated, her 
current  command  “should  issue  orders  for  a  complete  physical  evaluation  examination  and  if 
indicated a Medical Evaluation Board should be convened.”  The PSC stated that the applicant 
should not be returned to active duty because she departed the service voluntarily at the end of 
her enlistment.  However, her Reserve component needs to establish her fitness for service, and 
if she is found unfit for duty, her unit should begin PDES processing. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On May 13, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  She stated that she agreed that her unit should process her under the PDES and that her 
unit  had  already  convened  a  medical  board.    However,  she  did  not  agree  that  the  Coast  Guard 
had committed no errors because, she alleged, her unit did request a medical board for her prior 
to her separation. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  The appli-

cation was timely. 

 
2. 

 The  applicant  has  submitted  substantial  evidence  indicating  that  her  doctors 
found her to be unfit for duty at the time of her RELAD in July 2008.  However, under 33 C.F.R. 
§  52.13,  no  application  may  be  considered  until  the  applicant  “has  exhausted  all  effective 
administrative remedies afforded under existing law or regulations.”  The record shows that the 
applicant  is  currently  in  the  process  of  exhausting  a  significant  administrative  remedy  because 
her  Reserve  unit  has  convened  a  medical  board  and  is  processing  her  under  the  PDES.    The 
applicant has agreed that this PDES processing should continue. 

 
3. 

Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  case  is  not  yet  ripe  for  decision.  
The application should be dismissed without prejudice.  Her submissions shall be retained, and 
she may reapply to the Board if she is dissatisfied with the final outcome of her PDES process-
ing. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

military record is dismissed without prejudice. 
 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

   
 
 Adrian Sevier