DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2012-021 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 November 13, 2011, 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  12,  2012,  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  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  was  medically  dis-
charged  because  of  a  physical  disability.    He  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  on  April  8,  1996, 
after  just  seven  months  in  the  Service  due  to  a  knee  injury  he  had  incurred.    In  support  of  his 
allegations, the applicant submitted some of his medical records, which are included in the sum-
mary of the record below. 

 
The applicant did not state when he discovered the alleged error in his record.  However, 
he stated that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his application because 
“[t]his line was never seen by myself before nor anyone else.” 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On September 5, 1995, at age 19, the applicant enlisted in the Coast  Guard.  Following 
boot  camp,  he  advanced  to  seaman  apprentice  (SA/E-2)  and  assigned  to  a  medium  endurance 
cutter. 

 
On March 13, 1996, the applicant was examined by a psychologist.  He told the psychol-
ogist that he had been feeling anxious and depressed since he enlisted and that he wanted to get 
out of the Coast Guard.  He said that he was not happy and felt he could not live on the pay.  He 
said is only medical problem was seasickness and hives whenever he was at sea.  The psycholo-

 

 

gist noted that a doctor had diagnosed the applicant with an “adjustment disorder with depressive 
symptoms”1 and that he concurred in that diagnosis. 

 
On March 13, 1996, the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist, the Head of the Mental 
Health Department at a Naval Hospital.  The applicant told him that he had no desire to serve on 
a ship and that he had made a mistake by enlisting.  The applicant said that he needed “to get out 
of the Coast Guard before I hurt someone or bring damage to my ship.”  The psychiatrist stated 
that the applicant had no symptoms of neurosis, psychosis, or organic brain disorder but had poor 
impulse control and a “personality disorder not otherwise specified.”2   The psychiatrist strongly 
recommended that the applicant be discharged “as soon as possible” because “one cannot expect 
his behavior to improve.” 

 
Also on March 13, 1996, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) notified him that he 
was initiating the applicant’s honorable discharge due to his diagnosed personality disorder.  He 
advised the applicant that he had a right to disagree with the recommendation for discharge and 
to submit a statement about the recommendation.  On the same day, the applicant acknowledged 
the notification and stated that he did not object to being discharged, that he was fully aware of 
the process  and terms  of his  discharge, and that he felt the proposed discharge would be in  his 
and the Coast Guard’s best interests. 

 
Also on March 13, 1996, the CO asked the Personnel Command to issue discharge orders 
for  the  applicant  because  of  his  unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder.    The  CO  noted  the 
following about the applicant: 
 

3.  On 07 MAR 96 just two hours prior to [the cutter] getting underway [the applicant] refused to 
put on the uniform of the day and said he was not going to go on patrol.  He said he wanted out of 
the  Coast  Guard  as  soon  as  possible  and  he  did  not  want  to  stand  his  watches  or  have  anything 
more  to  do  with  the  ship.    After  consultation  with  the  Executive  Officer  it  was  clear  that  [the 
applicant] could not be trusted to stand alert watches and would require close supervision.  He was 
assigned messcooking duties.  While he has been performing the duties as assigned adequately, it 
is evident that he has no desire to improve his attitude and performance to the point where he can 
be  trusted  as  a  watchstander  or  member  of  the  boat  launching  detail,  or  any  other  duty  where  a 
sense of responsibility for others is required for the safe conduct of an evolution. 
 
4.  It was [due to the applicant’s] attitude, mood swings, and the fact that he kept to himself, and 
his lack of enthusiasm that we considered it prudent to have him medically evaluated.  We have, in 
roughly  four  months  he  has  been  assigned,  tried  many  leadership  techniques  and  several  people 

                                                 
1 An “adjustment disorder” is a psychological response to an identifiable stressor that results in the development of 
emotional or behavioral symptoms.  Adjustment disorders are normally temporary and disappear when the stressors 
disappear.  Adjustment disorders are not personality disorders.  American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND 
STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 679.   
2 A “personality disorder” is “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the 
expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, 
is  stable  over  time,  and  leads  to  distress  or  impairment.”    DSM_IV-TR,  at  685.        “The  diagnosis  of  Personality 
Disorders requires an evaluation of the individual’s long-term patterns of functioning … .  The personality traits that 
define these disorders must also be distinguished from characteristics that emerge in response to specific situational 
stressors or more transient mental states … .  The clinician should assess the stability of personality traits over time 
and  across  different  situations.”  Id.  at  686.  The  Coast  Guard  relies  on  the  DSM  when  diagnosing  members  with 
psychological conditions.  See Coast Guard Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B), Chap. 5.B.1. 

 

 

 

have  counseled  him.    I  do  not  believe  that  his  attitude  or  performance  will  improve.    More  than 
this, the longer he is aboard the more likely he will become a significant discipline problem. 

The applicant continued to serve in the mess on the ship while his discharge was pending.  
On March 19, 1996, he complained that he had fallen and injured his right knee.  He was placed 
on “sick in quarters” status for 24 hours and restricted to light duty (no sea duty) until March 25, 
1996,  pending  an  orthopedic  evaluation.    The  doctor  gave  him  a  brace  and  noted  that  he  sus-
pected a lateral meniscal tear.  On March 21, 1996, the doctor noted that the applicant still com-
plained of pain and that tests were needed to determine whether he had torn his ACL or menis-
cus.  The doctor returned him to sick in quarters status. 

 
On March 25, 1996, the applicant consulted an orthopedist at a Naval Hospital.  He was 
diagnosed with  a  probable tear of the lateral  meniscus in  his right  knee.  He was give crutches 
and continued on light duty. 

 
On  March  29,  1996,  the  applicant  underwent  a  physical  examination  pursuant  to  his 
pending discharge.  The doctor found him fit for discharge but noted that he had a “probable lat-
eral  meniscal  tear.”  The doctor wrote that the applicant  was being administratively discharged 
due to a personality order and “elects to follow up knee injury w/ VA.”  The applicant signed a 
form agreeing with the doctor’s findings. 

 
On April 2, 1996, the Personnel Command ordered the applicant’s CO to discharge him 

with an honorable discharge due to personality disorder with the JFX separation code. 

 
On April 8, 1996, the applicant signed several Page 7s with information about his separa-

tion and also the following statement for his record: 
 

My  medical  condition  has  been  explained  to  me  in  addition  to  my  benefits  through  the  Military 
System and the VA System.  I voluntarily waive my right to seek medical help through the Military 
System and I elected to seek medical help through the VA System. 
 
The applicant was honorably discharged on April 8, 1996.  His discharge form DD 214 
shows that he was discharged due to “Personality Disorder,” denoted by a JFX separation code, 
and was not eligible to reenlist, denoted by an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
In  2011,  the  applicant  filed  a  disability  claim  with  the  Department  of  Veterans’  Affairs 
(DVA) for a back condition and a left knee condition.  The DVA examiner found his left knee to 
be  normal,  and  the  applicant  denied  ever  having  injured  his  right  knee.    The  DVA  denied  the 
applicant’s claim for disability benefits, finding that his conditions were not service-connected. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 24, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 
in  which he recommended that the application be denied due to  its untimeliness but  stated that 
the Coast Guard would not object to partial relief being granted based on the recommendation in 
a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 

 

 

PSC stated that the applicant was properly discharged for “Personality Disorder” after he 
 
was  diagnosed  with  one  in  March  1996.    PSC  stated  that  although  the  applicant  apparently 
injured his right knee while his administrative discharge was pending, it was not a condition that 
would have entitled him to a medical discharge and disability benefits.  Moreover, PSC pointed 
out, the applicant was advised by his doctor that he could remain on active duty to receive mili-
tary  medical  care  for  his  right  knee  and  voluntarily  chose,  instead,  to  be  administratively  dis-
charged and receive medical care for his right knee from the DVA, if necessary. 
 
 
PSC  argued  that  the  applicant  was  not  entitled  to  a  medical  discharge  because  under 
Chapter 2.C.2.b. of the Medical Manual, “The law that provides for disability retirement or sepa-
ration (10 U.S.C. 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,” but the appli-
cant was not diagnosed with any condition that rendered him unfit for duty.  PSC noted that the 
applicant could have remained on active duty to receive treatment for his right knee but opted to 
be discharged instead. 
 
 
However, PSC recommended that the Board grant partial relief by issuing him a DD 215 
to  change  the  reason  for  his  discharge  from  “Personality  Disorder”  (JFX)  to  “Adjustment  Dis-
order” (JFY) and to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-3G (eligible to reenlist with 
a waiver) for the following reasons: 
 

[T]he  record  including  the  mental  health  consult  report  all  show  that  the  member  had  difficulty 
adjusting to life in the Service.  According to [ALCOAST 252/09], when a member is unable to 
adapt  to  military  life,  the  FY  series  of  separation  codes  was  created  with  the  narrative  reason 
adjustment disorder.  In the applicant’s case, a separation code of JFY with reentry code of RE-3G 
would be most appropriate and more favorable under today’s policy and should be applied as his 
record  suggests  adjustment  disorder  as  a  more  accurate  assessment  rather  than  personality  dis-
order. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On February 28, 2012, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the appli-

cant and invited him to respond in writing within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 1996 authorizes enlist-
ed  personnel  to  be  administratively  discharged  for  unsuitability  due  to  a  diagnosed  personality 
disorders.   
 

Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual lists the personality disorders that qualify a member 
for  administrative  discharge  pursuant  to Article  12.b.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.   Adjustment 
disorders are listed in Chapter 5.B.3 of the Medical Manual, which states that they “are generally 
treatable  and  not  usually  grounds  for  separation.    However,  when  these  conditions  persist  or 
treatment  is  likely  to  be  prolonged  or  non-curative  (e.g.  inability  to  adjust  to  military  life  …) 
process in accordance with [Article 12 of the Personnel Manual] is necessary.” 

 

 

 

 

Chapter  3.B.6.  of  the  Medical  Manual  provides  that  “[w]hen  a  member  has  an  impair-
ment  (in  accordance  with  section  3-F  of  this  Manual)  an  Initial  Medical  Board  [IMB]  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.” 

 
Chapter 3.F.12.b.(3) of the Medical Manual provides that an “internal derangement of the 
knee” is unfitting for retention on active duty if there is “[r]esidual instability following remedial 
measures, if more than moderate; or with recurring episodes of effusion or locking, resulting in 
frequent incapacitation.” 
 

The PDES Manual governs the separation of members due to physical disability.   Chap-

ter 2-C-2 of the PDES Manual states the following: 

 
a. 
The sole standard in making determinations of physical disability as a basis for retirement 
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. … 
 
b. 
The  law  that  provides  for  disability  retirement  or  separation  (Chapter  61, Title  10,  U.S. 
Code)  is  designed  to  compensate  members  whose  military  service  is  terminated due  to  a 
physical disability that has rendered the member unfit for continued duty.  That law and 
this disability evaluation system are not to be misused to bestow compensation benefits 
on  those  who  are  voluntarily  or  mandatorily  retiring  or  separating  and  have  theretofore 
drawn pay and allowances, received promotions, 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 service  member is scheduled for  separa-
tion or retirement for reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fit-
ness for duty.  This presumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that: 
 
 
form adequately the duties of office, grade, rank or rating; or 
 
 
acute,  grave  illness  or  injury,  or  other  deterioration  of  the  member’s 
physical condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for sepa-
ration or retirement for reasons other than physical disability which rendered the service 
member unfit for further duty. 
 
    (2)  Service  members  who  are  being  processed  for  separation  or  retirement  for  rea-
sons  other  than  physical  disability  shall  not  be  referred  for  disability  evaluation  unless 
their physical condition reasonably prompts doubt that they are fit to continue to perform 
the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. 
 
c. 
If the evidence establishes that service members adequately performed the duties 
of their office, grade, rank or rating until the time they were referred for physical evalua-
tion, they might be considered fit for duty even though  medical evidence indicates they 
have impairments. 

the service member, because of disability, was physically unable to per-

(a) 

(b) 

 

     

 

 

An  evaluee  whose  manifest  or  latent  impairment  may  be  expected  to  interfere  with  the 
e. 
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.” 
 
ALCOAST 252/09, issued on April 29, 2009, states that the Department of Defense has 
created new separation codes to address the situation in which a member is unsuitable for mili-
tary service because of a diagnosed adjustment disorder that prevents the member from adapting 
to military life.  The ALCOAST specifies that the new separation code JFY should be used, and 
the re-entry code assigned can be either RE-3G or RE-4.     
 

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 

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

1. 
 
2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.3 

 
3. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant in this case was 
administratively discharged, rather than medically discharged, more than 15 years before he filed 
his application.  Therefore, the application is not timely. 

 
4. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  an 
application  if  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    In  Allen  v.  Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158,  164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  Board  “should  analyze  both  the  reasons  for  the  delay  and  the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review.”4  

 
5. 

The applicant has provided no  explanation for his delay or compelling reason to 

excuse the untimeliness of his application.   

 

                                                 
3 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
4 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. 
Cir. 1995).   

 

 

6. 

The  Board’s  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  this  case  shows  that  although  the 
applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  received  a  medical  disability  separation  from  the  Coast 
Guard  due  to  a  right  knee  injury,  he  was  not  discharged  because  of  a  physical  disability.5  
Instead, after failing to  perform  his  duties adequately for several  months and refusing to  go on 
patrol, he was referred to a psychologist and a psychiatrist, whom he told that he wanted to get 
out of the Coast Guard and could not guarantee that he would not harm someone if he was not let 
out.    The  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  both  an  adjustment  disorder  and  a  personality  disorder 
and processed for an administrative separation because of the personality disorder in accordance 
with  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Although  there  is  evidence  that  he  injured  his 
right knee while his administrative separation was pending, he signed a statement acknowledging 
that  he  could  remain  on  active  duty  to  receive  military  treatment  for  the  injury  but  chose  to 
accept the pending discharge and seek treatment for the injury from the DVA instead.  There is 
no evidence that his right knee injury constituted a physical disability that rendered him unfit for 
continued military service,6 which is  the only permissible basis for a medical  disability separa-
tion.7  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim for a medical disability discharge has 
no potential to succeed on the merits. 

 
7. 

The  Coast  Guard  stated  in  its  advisory  opinion  that  it  would  not  object  if  the 
Board granted alternative relief by correcting the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation 
from personality disorder (JFX) to adjustment disorder (JFY) and by upgrading his reenlistment 
code from RE-4 (ineligible) to RE-3G (eligible with a waiver) in accordance with current policy 
under ALCOAST 252/09.   The applicant  submitted no response to this suggestion.   Moreover, 
the applicant  was  in  fact  diagnosed with  and discharged for  a personality  disorder in  1996  and 
assigned an RE-4, and he has not submitted any evidence to show that the diagnosis was errone-
ous or that his discharge for personality disorder with the RE-4 now constitutes a manifest injus-
tice in his record.  Given the applicant’s failure to make any effort in this regard and the evidence 
of record supporting his personality disorder discharge, the Board will not direct the Coast Guard 
to change the reason for discharge or reenlistment code on the applicant’s DD 214. 

 
8. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  insufficient  grounds  to  excuse  the  untimeliness  of 

the application in the interest of justice.  The application should be denied. 

 
  
 

 
 

 

                                                 
5 PDES Manual, Chap. 2.C.2.b. (“The law that provides for disability retirement or separation (Chapter 61, Title 10, 
U.S. Code) is designed to compensate members whose military service is terminated due to a physical disability that 
has rendered the member unfit for continued duty.”). 
6 Medical Manual, Chap. 3.F.12.b.(3) (providing that an “internal derangement of the knee” is unfitting for retention 
on  active  duty  only  if  there  is  “[r]esidual  instability  following  remedial  measures,  if  more  than  moderate;  or  with 
recurring  episodes  of  effusion  or  locking,  resulting  in  frequent  incapacitation.”);  PDES  Manual,  Chap.  2.A.38. 
(defining a  “physical disability” and  “[a]ny  manifest or latent physical  impairment or impairments due to disease, 
injury,  or  aggravation  by  service  of  an  existing  condition,  regardless  of  the  degree,  that  separately  makes  or  in 
combination make a member unfit for continued duty.” [emphasis added]). 
7  PDES  Manual,  Chap.  2.C.2.a.  (“The  sole  standard  in  making  determinations  of  physical  disability  as  a  basis  for 
retirement 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.”) 

 

 

 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 
 

ORDER 

 

  

 
 Reid Alan Cox  

 

 

 

 
 Jeffrey E. VanOverbeke 

 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall