DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-205 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 July 1, 2010, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare 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  April  8,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a chief investigator, was medically retired from the Coast Guard Reserve 
on March 23, 2009, with a 30% disability rating for Crohn’s disease.1  He alleged that he was 
first diagnosed with the disease while serving on extended active duty in 2004, and he asked the 
Board to correct his record to show that, instead of being released from active duty on November 
14, 2004, he was retained on active duty for several months while he was processed under the 
Coast Guard’s Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and then medically retired from 
active duty, so that he will be entitled to active duty retirement pay instead of Reserve retirement 
pay. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  releasing  him  from  active  duty  in 
2004 without first processing him under the PDES and that if he had been processed under the 
PDES in 2004, he would have been retired from active duty with a 30% disability rating.  He 
also  alleged  that  the  certified  physician’s  assistant  (PAC)  who  conducted  his  pre-discharge 
physical examination on September 28, 2004, never told him that his Crohn’s disease was dis-
qualifying for military service.  Therefore, he was unaware that he should have been processed 
under the PDES until December 2006, when a physician, Dr. R, showed him Chapter 3.D.17.b. 

                                                 
1   Crohn’s disease is “regional ileitis.”  Ileitis is inflammation of the ileum, which is the “distal portion of the small 
intestine.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 25TH ED. (1974). 

of the Medical Manual2 and said that PDES processing should have begun when the applicant 
was first diagnosed with Crohn’s disease in 2004.  He alleged that Dr. R also said that the PAC 
who conducted his pre-discharge physical examination in 2004 was incompetent and no longer 
worked for the Coast Guard.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  after  Dr.  R  recommended  that  he  be  evaluated  by  a  medical 
board in December 2006, his PDES processing was long delayed because of confusion and mis-
communications  between  his  command  and  the  Integrated  Support  Command.    However, 
throughout  his  PDES  processing,  he  “was  told  that  [he]  would  be  receiving  an  active  duty 
pension as this disability occurred while serving on active duty.”  The applicant alleged that he 
did not learn that he was receiving a Reserve retirement until after he received his first retirement 
pay on April 30, 2009. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On March 24, 2003, the applicant was involuntarily recalled to active duty in support of a 
contingency operation pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 12302.  The orders were extended through Sep-
tember 30, 2004. 
 
 
On September 13, 2004, the applicant went to a civilian hospital with complaints of upper 
abdominal pain for about 3 weeks, diarrhea for about 13 days, and fever for 10 days.  Upon his 
discharge  from the hospital on September 17, 2004, he was diagnosed  with “abd [abdominal] 
pain, possibly Crohn’s exacerbation” and prescribed 40 milligrams (mg) of Prednisone, a corti-
costeroid, per day. 
 
On September 28, 2004, the applicant underwent a pre-discharge physical examination to 
 
determine  his  fitness  for  separation  from  active  duty.    On  his  Report  of  Medical  History,  he 
noted that he was taking Prednisone for Crohn’s disease.  The Report of Medical Examination 
was completed by a PAC.  In block 77 of the report, which is for summarizing the member’s 
“defects and diagnoses” and noting whether the defects are disqualifying or not,3 the PAC noted 
that the applicant had “Crohn’s disease – newly diagnosed” and dyslipidemia (high cholesterol) 
but was “normal otherwise.”  The PAC did not mark either condition as “NCD” (not considered 
disqualifying)  or  note  in  block  74  whether  the  applicant  qualified  for  separation.4    However, 
under  Chapter  3.F.9.a.(8)  of  the  Medical  Manual,  Crohn’s  disease  is  disqualifying  “[e]xcept 
when responding well to ordinary treatment other than oral corticosteroids or immune-suppres-
sant medications.”  
 
                                                 
2 Chapter 3.D. of the Medical Manual lists the medical conditions that are disqualifying for enlistment in the Coast 
Guard or Coast Guard Reserve, including a history of or current Crohn’s disease.  Chapter 3.F. lists the conditions 
that are disqualifying for retention, including Crohn’s disease “[e]xcept when responding well to ordinary treatment 
other than oral corticosteroids or immune-suppressant medications.” Medical Manual, Chap. 3.F.9.a.(8) 
3 Chapter 4.B.6. of the Medical Manual states that in block 77 of the Report of Medical Examination, the examiner 
must  “[l]ist  ALL  defects  in  order  to  protect  both  the  Government,  and  evaluee,  in  the  event  of  future  disability 
compensation  claims.  All  defects  listed  which  are  not  considered  disqualifying  shall  be  so  indicated  by  the 
abbreviation NCD (Not Considered Disqualifying).” 
4 See footnote 3, above.  In block 74 of the Report of Medical Examination, the examiner must “[s]tate whether or 
not the examinee is qualified for the purpose of the examination.” Id. 

 
At a monthly follow-up examination on October 14, 2004, the applicant was advised to 
make dietary changes and, during the following month, to taper off the Prednisone and take Asa-
col.  However, his symptoms returned and on November 15, 2004, he was prescribed 6-MP and 
60 mg of Prednisone per day.  On December 6, 2004, the doctor again noted that the applicant 
would be tapering off Prednisone. 

 
On November 17, 2004, the applicant was released from active duty (RELAD) back to 
the Reserve.  According to the applicant he had been on terminal leave from the Coast Guard 
since October 1, 2004, and so had already returned to his civilian job as a police officer.  Upon 
returning to inactive duty in the Reserve, the applicant drilled regularly.  He performed 18 drills 
between his RELAD on November 17, 2004, and the end of his anniversary year on March 18, 
2005 (AY 2005). 

 
On  January  3,  2005,  a  chief  health  services  technician  (HSC)  serving  as  the  clinic 
administrator reviewed the Report of Medical Examination and noted that the applicant had not 
met the standards for separation.  However, the only disqualifying defects that the HSC noted 
were that the applicant had “failed to provide eye exam/IOP Repeat Audio.” 

 
From March 7 to 11, 2005, the applicant was hospitalized for “an extreme exacerbation 
of Crohn’s accompanied by abdominal pain.”  His doctor concluded that the medications he had 
prescribed, including Prednisone, 6-MP, Protonix, diflucan, and zelnorm, were not working.  The 
applicant had a port catheter inserted for regular infusions of Remicade, an immune-suppressant 
medication, and received his first infusion.  Following his discharge from the hospital, he was 
prescribed 20 mg of Prednisone per day and Remicade infusions every six to eight weeks. 

 

 
As a reservist, the applicant continued to drill and perform required periods of active duty 
for training.  He performed 38 drills and 15 days of active duty for annual training in AY 2006 
(from March 19, 2005, to March 18, 2006); 38 drills and 25 days of active duty for annual train-
ing in AY 2007; 45 drills and 4 days of active duty for annual training in AY 2008; and 31 drills 
and 16 days of active duty for annual training in AY 2009. 

 
At  his  unit’s  semi-annual  weigh-in  on  October  27,  2006,  the  applicant  was  14  pounds 
overweight.  His civilian doctor wrote a letter stating that weight gain is a well-known side effect 
of Prednisone use.  On December 14, 2006, Dr. R noted that taking Prednisone for Crohn’s dis-
ease was likely causing the applicant to exceed the Coast Guard’s weight standards. 

 
On December 15, 2006, the applicant filed for disability benefits from the Department of 
Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).  On April 11, 2007, he underwent a physical examination pursuant to 
his claim.  The applicant told the doctor that he had been having 8 to 12 bouts of diarrhea and 
abdominal pain per year lasting about 3 days each and that during these periods he would have 
diarrhea 4 to 6 times per day.  He also told the doctor that he was working full-time but that he 
had been absent from work for periods totaling about 3 weeks during the past year because of his 
Crohn’s symptoms. 

On  May  7,  2007,  the  DVA  awarded  the  applicant  a  10%  disability  rating  for  service-
connected Crohn’s disease effective as of December 15, 2006.  The DVA stated that the 10% 
rating was granted “for moderate symptoms with infrequent exacerbations.  A higher evaluation 
of 30 percent is not warranted unless the evidence shows moderately severe symptoms with fre-
quent exacerbations.”  The applicant appealed the DVA’s decision, noting that he was suffering 
from  flare-ups  of  Crohn’s  disease  every  month  and  undergoing  Remicade  infusions  every  six 
weeks.  On November 29, 2007, the DVA raised his disability rating to 30%, effective back to 
December 15, 2006, because of the “frequent exacerbations” of the disease. 
 

On December 14, 2007, the applicant’s commanding officer asked the regional Integrated 
Support Command to convene a medical evaluation board to evaluate the applicant’s fitness for 
duty.  The commanding officer stated the following: 
 

2.  In early September 2004, while serving on active duty under Title X (Enclosure 1 [orders]), 
[the  applicant]  was  hospitalized  and  later  diagnosed  with  Crohn’s  Disease.    On  28  September 
2004, prior to release from active duty, he received a physical and at the time, discussed the dis-
ease and provided his civilian health records to [the PAC] at ISC XXXX Health Department.  No 
action was taken and [he] was released from active duty. 
 
3.  [The applicant] claimed that in 2006, he provided [Dr. R], USPHS, USCG, a copy of his civil-
ian medical records relative to his Crohn’s Disease diagnosis and [Dr. R] was going to determine 
if a medical board was going to be completed by ISC XXXX. 
 
4.    [The  applicant]  has  had  trouble  meeting  the  Coast  Guard’s  weight  standards  and  he  has 
explained that his prescribed medication for Crohn’s Disease has a side effect of destroying his 
immune system and also results in him not being able to stay within the Coast Guard’s prescribed 
weight standards.  In October 2007, [he] was weighed and was 14 pounds overweight and claims 
his health is deteriorated to the point where he doesn’t believe he can lose the weight. 
 
5.  According to [the applicant], he was recently rated 30% disabled by the VA.  [He] provided a 
copy of his medical records (Enclosure 2). 
 
 
On July 16, 2008, a civilian doctor wrote a letter stating that the applicant “is currently 
undergoing IV Remicade treatments every 8 weeks.  Because of the nature of this disease, it is 
not uncommon for the patient to experience periods of remission followed by periods of exacer-
bation.  Therefore, the patient remains and will continue to remain on Remicade for an undeter-
mined amount of time (i.e., until a cure is found or better drug regimen is introduced).” 
 

On November 25, 2008, a Coast Guard attorney informed the applicant that an Informal 
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) had found him not fit for duty and recommended that he be 
permanently retired with a 30% disability rating.  The applicant accepted the recommendation 
instead of demanding a hearing before a formal board. 
 

The applicant’s retirement orders, issued on February 25, 2009, and effective as of March 
24, 2009, state that the retirement was authorized based on a written decision by the Reserve Per-
sonnel Management branch of the Personnel Command and directed by Commander, Personnel 
Command,  who  approved  the  recommendation  of  the  IPEB  that  the  applicant  be  permanently 
retired with a 30% disability rating in accordance with 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61.5 
                                                 
5 10 U.S.C. chapter 61 contains the statutes governing all disability retirements, both regular and Reserve. 

 
On May 7, 2009, the Pay and Personnel Center responded to a letter from the applicant 
about  his  retirement  pay  and  stated  that  his  non-regular,  Reserve  retirement  pay  was  correct 
based upon the retirement orders. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  October  27,  2010,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in 
 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the find-
ings and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
The  PSC  stated  that  the  under  the  PDES,  members  cannot  initiate  PDES  processing, 
which is only initiated by a commanding officer when a doctor finds the member has an unfitting 
or disqualifying medical condition.  “The law that provides for disability retirement or separation 
(10 U.S.C. 61) is designed to compensate a member whose military service is cut short due to a 
physical disability that has rendered him or her unfit for continued duty.”  The PSC stated that 
under Chapter 2.C.2.c. of the PDES Manual, “[i]f a member is being processed for separation or 
retirement for reasons other than physical disability adequately performed the duties of his or her 
office, grade, rank or rating, the member is deemed fit for duty even though medical evidence 
indicates he has impairments.”   
 

The  PSC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  being  separated  from  active  duty  in  November 
2004 because his active duty orders ended, not because of his diagnosed Crohn’s disease.  The 
PSC noted that the PAC wrote on the Report of Medical Examination dated September 28, 2004, 
that  the  applicant  had  recently  been  diagnosed  with  Crohn’s  disease,  but  that  the  HSC  who 
reviewed the report noted only that the applicant had not qualified for separation because he had 
failed to undergo required vision and hearing examinations.  The PSC stated that “[a]lthough the 
applicant’s separation physical noted ‘Crohn’s disease – newly diagnosed,’ this notation may not 
have prompted further action since Crohn’s disease would not have been a disqualifying condi-
tion for separation. … Applicant was not having a recurrence of Crohn’s disease symptoms at the 
time of his separation physical.” 
 
 
The PSC stated that that the applicant’s fitness for duty following his release from active 
duty is proved by the fact that he continued to perform drills and active duty for annual training 
for more than four more years.  The PSC argued that the applicant’s performance of duty after 
being RELAD creates a presumption of fitness for duty. 
 
 
The PSC stated that the command initiated PDES processing for the applicant because he 
failed  weight  probation  and  had  received  a  30%  disability  rating  from  the  DVA.    When  the 
applicant was retired on March 24, 2009, he had 19 years of satisfactory federal service for a 
Reserve retirement with 3,680 Reserve retirement points.  These satisfactory years include a little 
more than 10 years of total active duty service. 
 
The  PSC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  properly  RELAD  on  November  17,  2004,  and 
 
“there is no indication that he should have been retained on active duty. … There is no reason to 

change the date of applicant’s permanent disability retirement and consequently, [he] should not 
be awarded retirement back pay and benefits.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 17, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the Coast Guard’s 
advisory opinion.  The applicant repeated some of his allegations.  He also argued that contrary 
to the Coast Guard’s claim, he was not fit for duty between September  2004 and his medical 
retirement in 2009.  He explained that after his discharge physical on September 28, 2004, he 
went  on  terminal  leave  from  October  1,  2004,  until  he  was  RELAD  on  November  17,  2004.   
During  those  weeks,  he  returned  to  his  civilian  job  as  a  police  officer  but  had  to  take  leave 
because his symptoms returned.  
 

During his subsequent anniversary years, the applicant stated, his command and the ISC 
told him he needed to continue drilling to earn satisfactory years of service for retirement pur-
poses, and they were flexible and allowed him to adjust his drill schedule so that he could drill 
when his Crohn’s disease was not flaring up.  The applicant stated that if he had been required to 
serve on continuous active duty, to travel, or to drill on a set schedule, he would not have been 
able to continue. 
 
 
The applicant stated that after Dr. R decided that he should be processed under the PDES 
in December 2006, his command and the ISC told him that he should continue drilling until a 
medical board could be convened “to avoid losing a good year of service towards my retirement.  
I continued to drill when fit to do so.”  However, the medical board was delayed for almost a 
year because of miscommunications and confusion over who was going to convene the board.  
When the medical board was finally convened in December 2007, he was again told to continue 
drilling so that he would not lose a satisfactory year of service for retirement purposes.  There-
fore, he drilled when he was fit to do so.  During this period, the applicant stated, the Medical 
Officer at the ISC repeatedly told him that he should not have been RELAD after he was diag-
nosed in 2004 and also that the PAC had been fired for incompetency.   
 

The applicant alleged that at the time of his RELAD, his condition was severe because he 
was  hospitalized  for  it  just  a  couple  of  weeks  before  his  separation  physical  examination  on 
September 28, 2004.  The PAC, he alleged, disregarded his disqualifying diagnosis “despite my 
efforts to bring it to her attention repeatedly during the separation physical.”  He alleged that, 
contrary to regulations, she failed to determine whether his disease was disqualifying and failed 
to advise him of her findings.  In addition, he was never offered the opportunity to agree or dis-
agree with the PAC’s findings. 

 
The applicant argued that the fact that he did not suffer a flare-up between his discharge 
from the hospital on September 17, 2004, and his examination on September 28, 2004, was not 
an adequate test of his fitness because flare-ups are irregular.  He alleged that he suffered symp-
toms of his disease while on terminal leave from October 1 to November 17, 2004, and informed 
his command of that fact.  He alleged that between October 1, 2004, and April 6, 2005, he took 
19 days of leave and left work early four times because of Crohn’s disease and regularly submit-
ted his medical records to the Coast Guard.  In support of this allegation, he submitted his leave 

records from his civilian employer, and alleged that they show that in 2004 he was unfit to con-
tinue serving on active duty.  The leave records show that he took leave from his civilian job as a 
police officer as follows in 2004:  10 hours of sick leave on October 19, 2004; 2 hours of vaca-
tion on 11/02/04; 10 hours of sick leave each on November 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2004; 10 hours of 
vacation leave each on 11/24/04 and 11/25/2004; 3 hours of holiday leave on 12/7/04; and 10 
hours of holiday leave on 12/23/04.  The records also show that he took 10 hours of sick leave 
each on February 23 and 24, 2005; 10 hours of sick leave for eight days in March 2005; and 10 
hours of vacation leave in June 2005. 

 
The applicant argued that he was not fit for duty and that his ability to drill following his 
RELAD depended entirely upon the flexibility of his position.  He applicant stated that to be “fit 
for full duty,” a member must be physically able to perform duty worldwide and that this was 
clearly not the case in 2004, when his Crohn’s disease was uncontrolled by Prednisone and other 
medications.  His duties as a special agent for the Coast Guard often included participating in 
protection details for the Commandant and other dignitaries, which required travel and long days 
of work, but he was unable to perform such details in 2004 and early 2005.  He also noted that 
under Chapter 6.A. of the Medical Manual, members are not fit for full duty if they are not medi-
cally  ready  for  deployment,  and  his  symptoms  clearly  prevented  him  from  being  ready  for 
deployment. 

 
The applicant stated that if the PAC had properly assessed his Crohn’s disease as a dis-
qualifying condition, under Articles 12.B.6.d. and 12.B.11.i. of the Personnel Manual, his com-
mand would have retained him on active duty in order to convene an MEB.  He alleged that if an 
MEB had been convened in 2004, he would have been found unfit for duty and further processed 
under the PDES for a physical disability retirement from active duty.  The applicant argued, in 
this regard, that his case is similar to BCMR Docket No. 2008-083, wherein the Board granted 
relief.  The applicant stated that he has tried to get statements from the PAC and Dr. R without 
any success. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
 
Under Article 12.B.6.a.  of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2004, each  member must 
undergo  a  physical  examination  prior  to  being  RELAD,  and  the  examination  is  supposed  to 
occur approximately six months prior to the RELAD date.  Article 12.B.6.b. states that when the 
examination is completed, 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. states that if a member objects to a finding of physically qualified for 
separation, the report of the examination and the member’s written objections shall be sent to the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) for review.  If necessary, the member may remain on 
active duty beyond the expected separation date.  
 
 

 

[w]hen  the  results  of  all  tests  have  been  received  and  evaluated,  and  all  findings  recorded,  the 
examiner shall consult the appropriate standards of this chapter to determine if any of the defects 
noted are disqualifying for the purpose of the physical examination. … If in the examiner's opin-
ion, a defect listed as disqualifying is not disabling for military service, or a particular program, 
the examiner shall indicate the basis for this opinion and recommend a waiver in accordance with 
the provisions of section A of this chapter. 
 
Chapter 3.F.1.c. of the Medical Manual states the following: 

Members  are  ordinarily  considered  fit  for  duty  unless  they  have  a  physical  impairment  (or 
impairments) that interferes with the performance of the duties of their grade or rating. A determi-
nation  of  fitness  or  unfitness  depends  upon  the  individual's  ability  to  reasonably  perform  those 
duties. Active duty or selected reserves on extended active duty considered permanently unfit for 
duty shall be referred to an Initial Medical Board for appropriate disposition. 

Chapter 3.F.2. of the Medical Manual states the following:  

This  section  lists  certain  medical  conditions  and  defects  that  are  normally  disqualifying.  …  Its 
major objective is to achieve uniform disposition of cases arising under the law, but it is  not  a 
mandate that possession of one or more of the listed conditions or physical defects (and any other 
not listed)  means automatic retirement or separation. If the member’s condition is disqualifying 
but  he/she  can  perform  his/her  duty,  a  waiver  request  could  be  submitted  in  lieu  of  immediate 
referral  to  an  Initial  Medical  Board.  If  the  request  is  denied,  then  an  Initial  Medical  Board  is 
required. 

 

 
 
 

 

Coast Guard Medical Manual 
 
 
the Report of Medical Examination, DD-2808, pursuant to a physical examination, 
 

Chapter 3.B.3.a.1. of the Medical Manual in effect in 2004 states that when completing 

The  list  mentioned  in  Chapter  3.F.2.  includes,  in  Chapter  3.F.9.a.(8),  Crohn’s  disease 
“[e]xcept when responding well to ordinary treatment other than oral corticosteroids or immune-
suppressant medications.” 

 
Chapter 3.A.8. of the Medical Manual states that if the examiner finds that a member has 
a condition that is disqualifying but not actually disabling, the member may request a temporary 
or permanent waiver to avoid separation. 
 
 
Chapter 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.  Article 3.B.5.b. states that consultations shall be obtained to tho-
roughly evaluate all the problems or objections indicated by the evaluee.   
 

Chapter 3.B.5.c. states that CGPC will evaluate each case and, based upon the informa-
tion 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 separa-
tion inappropriate, in which case the entire record will be returned and appropriate action recom-
mended; 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 2.B.2. states that a member “is presumed fit to perform the duties of his or her 
office, grade, rank or rating. The presumption stands unless rebutted by a preponderance of evi-
dence.” 
 
Article 2.C.2. of the PDES Manual states the following: 
 
Fit For Duty/Unfit for Continued Duty. The following policies relate to fitness for duty:  
 

a. The sole standard in making determinations of physical disability as a basis for retire-
ment or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rating because 
of disease or injury incurred or aggravated through military service. Each case is to be considered 
by relating the nature and degree of physical disability of the evaluee concerned to the require-
ments and duties that a member may reasonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, 
rank or rating. In addition, before separation or permanent retirement may be ordered:  

According to Chapter 3.B.6. of the Medical Manual, which is entitled “Separation Not 

Appropriate by Reason of Physical Disability,” 
 

[w]hen a  member has an impairment (in accordance  with  section 3-F of this  manual) an Initial 
Medical Board shall be convened only if the conditions listed in paragraph 2-C-2.(b) [of the PDES 
Manual] are also met.  Otherwise the member is suitable for separation. 

 
(1) There must be findings that the disability:  

(a) is of a permanent nature and stable, and  
(b) was not the result of intentional misconduct or willful neglect and was not 

incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 

●  ●  ● 

b. The law that provides for disability retirement or separation (10 U.S.C., chapter 61) 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 evaluation 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 following policies apply:  

 
(1) Continued performance of duty until a member is scheduled for separation or retire-
ment for reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fitness for duty. This pre-
sumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that:  

(a)  the  member,  because  of  disability,  was  physically  unable  to  perform  ade-

quately in his or her assigned duties; or  

(b) acute, grave illness or injury, or other deterioration of the member’s physical 
condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for separation or 
retirement for reasons other than physical disability which rendered him or her unfit for 
further duty. 

 

  

(2) A member being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physi-
cal  disability  shall  not  be  referred  for  disability  evaluation  unless  the  conditions  in  paragraphs 
2.C.2.b.(1)(a) or (b) are met.  

 
c. If a member being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physi-
cal disability adequately performed the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating, the mem-
ber is presumed fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates he or she has impairments. 

 
d. Inadequate performance of duty, by itself, does not constitute physical unfitness. The 
evidence must establish a cause and effect relationship between the inadequate performance and 
the evaluee’s physical impairments. 

  
e. An evaluee whose manifest or latent impairment may be expected to interfere with the 
performance of duty in the near future may be found “unfit for continued duty” even though the 
member is currently physically capable of performing all assigned duties. Conversely, an evaluee 
convalescing from a disease or injury which reasonably may be expected to improve so that he or 
she will be able to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in the near future 
may be found “Fit for Duty.” In this instance, the evaluee will continue in an interim duty status 
until convalescence is complete, at which time he or she will be returned to a full duty status.  

 
f.  The  following  standards  and  criteria  will  not  be  used  as  the  sole  basis  for  making 
determinations that an evaluee is unfit for continued military service by reason of physical disabil-
ity. 

  

 

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) Inability to perform all duties of his or her office,  grade, rank or rating in 
every  geographic  location  and  under  every  conceivable  circumstance.  Where  feasible, 
and if requested by the evaluee, consideration should be given to providing the member 
an opportunity for a change in rating to one in which the disability is no longer a disquali-
fying factor. 

(2) Inability to satisfy the standards for initial entry into military service, except 

as specified in paragraph 2.C.2.g.  

(3) Lack of a special skill in demand by the service.  
(4) Inability to qualify for specialized duties requiring a high degree of physical 

fitness, such as flying, unless it is a specific requirement of the enlisted rating.  

(5) The presence of one or more physical defects that are sufficient to require 
referral for evaluation or that may be unfitting for a member in a different office, grade, 
rank or rating.  

(6) Pending voluntary or involuntary separation, retirement, or release to inac-

tive status. (see paragraph 2.C.2.b.(1)) 

●  ●  ● 

i. The existence of a physical defect or condition that is ratable under the standard sche-
dule for rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) does not of itself 
provide justification for, or entitlement to, separation or retirement from military service because 
of physical disability. Although a member may have physical impairments ratable in accordance 
with the VASRD, such impairments do not necessarily render him or her unfit for military duty. A 
member may have physical impairments that are not unfitting at the time of separation but which 
could affect potential civilian employment. The effect on some civilian pursuits may be signifi-
cant. Such a member should apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability compensa-
tion after release from active duty. 

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

application was timely. 

 
2.  In the fall of 2004, the applicant was being RELAD because his Title 10 orders were 
ending. Chapter 3.B.6. of the Medical Manual states that when a member is being separated from 
active duty for reasons other than disability and the “member has an impairment (in accordance 
with section 3-F of this manual), an Initial Medical Board shall be convened only if the condi-
tions listed in [Article 2.C.2.b. of the PDES Manual] are also met.  Otherwise the member is 
suitable for separation.”  Chapter 3.F.9.a.(8) of the Medical Manual states that Crohn’s disease is 
disqualifying  “[e]xcept  when  responding  well 
than  oral 
corticosteroids or immune-suppressant medications.”  The applicant was diagnosed with Crohn’s 
disease  and  prescribed  Prednisone,  a  corticosteroid,  by  a  civilian  physician  in  mid  September 
2004, about two weeks before his separation physical examination on September 28, 2004.  
 

treatment  other 

to  ordinary 

3.  Article 2.C.2.b.(2) of the PDES Manual states that “[a] member being processed for 
separation  or  retirement  for  reasons  other  than  physical  disability  shall  not  be  referred  for 
disability evaluation unless the conditions in paragraphs 2.C.2.b.(1)(a) or (b) are met.”  Those 
paragraphs  require  a  member  to  rebut  his  fitness  for  duty  by  showing  that  he  was  physically 
unable to perform his duties adequately or was disabled by an acute, grave illness or injury or 
other deteriorating physical condition that rendered him unfit.   
 

4.  Based upon the medical evidence of record, coupled with the errors committed by the 
Coast Guard, the Board finds that the applicant was entitled to PDES processing. The PAC erred 
in conducting the applicant’s physical examination for separation on September 28, 2004.  The 
PAC  noted  the  applicant’s  newly  diagnosed  Crohn’s  disease  on  the  Report  of  Medical 
Examination but, contrary to regulation, failed to state whether it was disabling or not and failed 
to indicate whether the applicant was qualified or disqualified for separation.6  In addition, the 
applicant  apparently  never  had  the  opportunity  to  agree  with  or  object  to  the  PAC’s  finding 
(assuming she made one) because there is no CG-4057 in the applicant’s record.7 The applicant 
has  submitted  sufficient  medical  evidence  to  establish  that  he  had  a  deteriorating  physical 
condition  (Crohn’s  disease)  that  caused  him  to  be  unfit  at  the  time  of  his  RELAD  in  2004.  
Therefore, under Article 2.C.2.b.(1)(b), he was entitled to PDES processing.    

 
5.  Even though the applicant has established that he was entitled to PDES processing 
prior to his 2004 RELAD, he has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he would 
have received a 30% disability rating due to Crohn’s disease at that time.   At the time of his 
RELAD, he was in the early stages of Crohn’s disease having been diagnosed just two weeks 
before his Title 10 orders were to end on September 30, 2004.8  Except for a hospital stay of 4 
days and treatment with Prednisone, the applicant did not exhibit any other symptoms prior to his 

                                                 
6  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual,  Chapter  4.B.6.  (instructions  for  completing  blocks  74  and  77  of  the  Report  of 
Medical Examination). 
7 Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 12.B.6.b. (requiring member’s signature on CG-4057). 
8 The applicant stated that his Title 10 orders were extended to November 17, 2004, so that he could take terminal 
leave between October 1, 2004 and November 17, 2004.  There is no written approval for an extension of the orders 
in the record.  

separation  physical;  nor  did  he  provide  medical  or  command  evidence  explaining  how  the 
Chron’s disease interfered with his ability to perform the duties of his office, grade, or rate.  

 
6.   Approximately 3 years after his RELAD, the applicant underwent PDES processing at 
the  direction  of  his  command  because  the  Prednisone  he  was  prescribed  for  Crohn’s  disease 
allegedly caused him to be unable to meet weight requirements. The IPEB determined that the 
applicant  was  unfit  and  rated  his  disability  due  to  Chron’s  disease  as  30%  disabling  under 
Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 7323.  See 38 C.F.R. § 
4.114.    For  a  30%  rating  under VASRD  code  7323,  the  applicant’s  condition  must  have  been 
moderately severe with frequent exacerbations.  During the period between his RELAD and the 
IPEB, the applicant was hospitalized for 4 days in March 2005, had a port catheter inserted for 
regular  infusions  of  Remicade,  an  immune-suppressant  medication,  and  was  continued  on 
Prednisone.  In light of this medical evidence, the Board finds that the applicant’s condition had 
worsened after his return to the Reserve and that its interference with his ability to perform the 
duties of his office, grade or rate was clearly established.    

 
7.   To  summarize,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  PDES  processing 
prior to his RELAD in 2004, but he has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
he would have received a 30% disability rating at that time.  Accordingly, his request for relief 
should be denied.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR (retired), for correc-

ORDER 

 

tion of his military record is denied.  

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

  

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 

 
 Jeffrey E. VanOverbeke 

 

 

 

 

 
 Barbara Walthers