DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1998-099 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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.  It was com-
menced upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction on July 
31, 1998.   
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  5,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his record 
by reinstating him in the Coast Guard and awarding him full pay and benefits 
retroactively since the date of his discharge on May 9, 199x.  In the alternative, he 
asked for early retirement under the Coast Guard’s Temporary Early Retirement 
Authority (TERA), Pub. L. 103-337 § 542(d), 108 Stat. 2091, 2769 (1994). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  while  he  was  stationed  at  xxxxxxxx,  in  the 
early 1990s, the officer in charge (OIC) “lacked the ability to provide leadership 
and maintain good order and the respect of the crew.”  Moreover, the applicant 
alleged,  the  OIC  “would  not  operate  the  boats”  and  would  make  excuses  to 
avoid operating them.  The applicant alleged that he tried to cover for the OIC 
but could no longer do so after an incident on xxxxxxxx, 199x.  On that day, he 
alleged, the OIC refused to come to the rescue of a xxxxxxx and a Coast Guard 

boat under the applicant’s command, which had lost its xxxxxxxx while trying to 
save the xxxxxxxx in heavy weather. 
 
The applicant alleged that, as a result of the OIC’s behavior, he felt forced 
 
to speak to the group commander for the sake and safety of his crew.  After an 
investigation, he alleged, the OIC was relieved of his command and transferred 
to a new station.  While serving at his new station, the OIC was killed on xxxxx. 
 
 
The applicant alleged  that, upon learning of the OIC’s death on xxxxxx, 
199x,  he  felt  responsible  and  “overwhelmed  with  guilt.”    As  a  result,  he  took 
leave, went to the beach, “consumed a large quantity of beer, and without being 
fully aware of his surroundings, engaged in an act that was to lead to his arrest 
for public indecency.”   
 

The applicant alleged that he pleaded guilty to the charges in December 
199x “to shield the service from adverse publicity.”  He was sentenced to under-
go  treatment  in  a  sex offender  program.    (Likewise,  the  applicant  alleged  that, 
after his prior arrest for public indecency in 198x, which also followed his con-
sumption of a large quantity of alcohol, he did not challenge the charges “[b]e-
cause he did not want to tarnish the reputation of the Coast Guard he honored.”)   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  when  his  command  ordered  him  to  undergo 
psychological  evaluation,  the  psychologist  conducted  a  50-minute  “hasty  inter-
view, and, without adhering to diagnostic protocols, found [the applicant] to be 
suffering  from  a  personality  disorder.”    The  diagnosis  was  made,  he  alleged, 
without a thorough clinical evaluation, review of records, or projective tests.  The 
applicant  alleged  that  he  did  not  have  a  personality  disorder.    Instead,  he 
alleged,  his  arrest  for  public  indecency  was  caused  by  post-traumatic  stress 
disorder, adjustment disorder, and temporary intoxication, from all of which he 
has recovered.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that an administrative discharge board (ADB) con-
vened in June 199x to consider his separation from the Service had unanimously 
recommended  that  he  be  retained  if  he  completed  the  sex  offender  program.  
However, despite this recommendation and subsequent efforts by his superiors 
on his behalf, he was honorably discharged after more than 16 years of service by 
reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  The applicant alleged that 
he  was  discharged  because  of  the  incorrect  psychological  diagnosis  and  state-
ment  of  prognosis.    He  alleged  that  he  should  not  have  been  discharged  or  at 
least  should  have  been  retired  under  TERA.    As  a  result  of  the  discharge,  he 
alleged, he has lost all his retirement benefits.  He also alleged that his discharge 
prevents him from obtaining many kinds of employment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel 
 
 
On February 25, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s 
request due to lack of proof. 
  
 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  psychological  diagnosis 
had  been  properly  made  by  competent  medical  authorities  who  exercised  due 
diligence in their evaluation.  He argued that the applicant has not provided the 
necessary  “clear,  cogent,  and  convincing  evidence”  necessary  to  overcome  the 
presumption of regularity.  Muse v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 592, 601 (1990).   
 

The Chief Counsel further alleged that the applicant’s two arrests quali-
fied him for a misconduct discharge pursuant to either Article 12.B.18.b.(1) of the 
Personnel  Manual  (moral  turpitude)  or  Article  12.B.18.b.(6)(c)  (indecent  expo-
sure).  He also alleged that, because the applicant had admitted to drinking large 
amounts of alcohol prior to each arrest, the incidents qualified as “alcohol inci-
dents” and would thus justify his discharge under Article 20.B.2.h.(2).  Therefore, 
the Chief Counsel argued, “[a]ssuming, arguendo, that the psychological diagno-
sis  was  inaccurate,  any  error  in  the  exact  diagnosis  was  harmless  because  the 
Applicant would still have been discharged by reason of misconduct due to his 
two  arrests  for  moral  turpitude  or,  in  the  alternative,  for  his  two  documented 
alcohol incidents.”  He also pointed out that if the applicant had been discharged 
for misconduct, he would not have received the transition benefits available to 
those discharged for unsuitability. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant  was  accorded  his  full  pro-
cedural rights through the ADB, where he was represented by a military attorney 
and  called  witnesses  on  his  own  behalf.    Article  12.B.31.d.(1)  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, he alleged, authorizes the Commandant to discharge members despite a 
contrary recommendation by an ADB “so long as that action is supported by evi-
dence of record and the specific reasons are set out in the final action.”  The Chief 
Counsel alleged that the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), to whom the 
Commandant has delegated this authority, properly set out the reasons for the 
applicant’s discharge in its final action. 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  TERA  statutes  give  the  Coast Guard 
“broad discretion to manage its active duty workforce by encouraging voluntary 
early retirement according to service needs.”  Furthermore, although the Coast 
Guard was authorized to use TERA in 1994, it did not do so until 1996.  When 
TERA was implemented in 1996, “the sole criteria for granting retirements under 

TERA was the achievement of force reductions to meet the force structure needs 
of the Coast Guard.”  Therefore, he alleged, eligibility for TERA is “within the 
discretion of the Coast Guard,” and the applicant had no statutory or regulatory 
right to TERA. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 24, 1999, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the  Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The  applicant 
requested  two  extensions  and  then  responded  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s  advisory 
opinion on May 14, 1999.     
 

The applicant argued that whether or not the Coast Guard had acted dili-
gently and in good faith with regard to his psychiatric evaluation was irrelevant.  
“Neither good faith nor due diligence guarantee accuracy of the outcome.”  The 
applicant alleged that he had proved that the Coast Guard’s diagnosis was inac-
curate with evidence from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV and from his 
treating psychologist.  Therefore, his discharge for unsuitability due to a person-
ality disorder was in error.  He alleged that his statement before the ADB that he 
acknowledged his personality disorder carries no weight because he was a lay-
person and patient and “in no position to determine the accuracy of a psychiatric 
diagnosis.” 
 
The applicant also rebutted the Chief Counsel’s allegation that even if the 
 
applicant had been misdiagnosed, the error was harmless because he could have 
been discharged for misconduct.  The applicant argued that “could have been” 
does not necessarily mean “would have been,” especially in light of the ADB’s 
recommendation.  “Furthermore, it offends due process [for the Chief Counsel] 
to  attempt,  post  hoc,  to  replace  a  flawed  decision  with  what  might  have  been.”  
The applicant also argued that the BCMR, like federal courts, should reject post 
hoc rationalization and “adjudicate agency actions based solely on the grounds 
relied  upon  by  the  agency.”    SBC  Communications  v.  F.C.C.,  138  F.3d  410,  418 
(D.C. Cir. 1998).   
 
 
The applicant argued that the Coast Guard’s adherence to proper proce-
dures  in  his  case  is  irrelevant  because  those  procedures  could  not  and  did  not 
prevent the inaccurate diagnosis.  He argued that, under the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, agency decisions may be overturned not only if proper procedures 
are not followed, but also if the agency’s decision is “unwarranted by the facts.”  
5 U.S.C. § 706(1)(D) and (F). 
 
 
The applicant also stated that he had never alleged that he was entitled to 
retirement  under  TERA;  he  had  merely  suggested  it  as  an  alternative  form  of 

relief.    The  applicant  alleged  that  on  January  31,  199x,  his  group  commander 
summoned him and told him that, if he applied for TERA within 24 hours, he 
would be permitted to retire.  The applicant alleged that he did so and was being 
processed  for  retirement  in  February  when  CGPC  informed  his  group  com-
mander that the offer had been withdrawn.  The applicant further pointed out 
that a TERA retirement was identified as a possible outcome by the Chief Coun-
sel in a memorandum to CGPC dated March 6, 1996.  The applicant submitted 
copies of Coast Guard communications supporting these allegations. 
  

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on May 8, 197x.  He was pro-
moted to xxxxx in 1981 and to xxx in 1984.  His record contains many awards and 
commendations for exceptional service.  Apart from low marks assigned for his 
arrests, the applicant’s evaluations are excellent.  He received 12 marks of 7 (best 
member in grade) in various performance categories. 
 
 
On  June  11,  198x,  he  was  issued  a  citation  by  the  xxxx  State  police  for 
public  indecency  after  drinking  a  large  quantity  of  alcohol.    The  arrest  report 
states the following, based on the statements of five witnesses: 
 

They observed the suspect on the beach at xxxxxxx, lying on his back.  He was 
wearing a pair of blue bikini swim trunks, which he had pulled down in front.  
The  suspect  had  his  penis  exposed  out  the  top  of  his  trunks,  with  an  erection, 
fondling it, and appeared to be looking at a young girl.  The suspect was with 
two  children  and  after  about  15  minutes,  he  left  with  them.  .  .  .    [The  suspect] 
stated  that  he  did  not  understand  what  people  were  getting  excited  about, 
however, did not deny, or admit, to the accusations. 

 
He pled guilty on February 1, 198x, and received a $250 fine and a suspended 
sentence.    His  commanding  officer  gave  him  a  poor  evaluation  for  this  period 
and ordered him to undergo a psychological evaluation.  A naval reserve coun-
selor reported the following: 
 

. . . The evaluation was recommended following a citation for public indecency 
resulting in the removal of the patient from his home for the purpose of separat-
ing him from his children.  The patient was seen in one session . . . .  The patient 
denied the accusations alleged by the State Police and went on to explain that he 
had already contacted one witness who corroborated his own story. . . .  He fur-
ther explained that he was a victim of cultural harassment in that he came from a 
cosmopolitan  environment  where  manner  of  dress  was  more  lenient  .  .  .  .    He 
further  explained  that  he  received  no  support  from  his  command  and,  to  the 
contrary, also felt harassed by a significant number of personnel at his command, 
essentially on the basis of envy . . . . 
 

. . . His affect was angry and his mood suggested righteous indignation . . . he 
frequently  returned  to  the  topic  of  the  injustices  presented  to  him  by  his  com-
mand. . . . [H]e explained his situation being the result of petty jealousy. 
 
MMPI testing revealed a highly defended and possibly invalid profile suggesting 
high  levels  of  repression  and  low  levels  of  anxiety.    Paranoid  scale  evaluation, 
while  suggesting  situational  factors,  also  suggested  a  more  pervasive  tendency 
toward interpersonal and social conflict. 
 
IMPRESSION:  NO PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS 
 
ASSESSMENT:    There  is  no  evidence  of  a  psychiatric  condition  which  would 
cause this service member to be unfit for duty . . . . 

 
 
The applicant was promoted to xxxx in 1991.  On June 23, 199x, the appli-
cant was arrested for public indecency on a beach after having consumed a large 
quantity  of  beer.    The  arresting  officer  reported  that  three  witnesses  told  him 
they had seen the applicant standing between two vehicles in a parking lot.  He 
had his pants down and was masturbating.  When one of the witnesses yelled at 
him, the applicant ran into the public restroom and later walked over to a nearby 
trailer court.  Upon arrest, the applicant told the officer he was just changing his 
shorts.    The  officer  later  heard  him  tell  someone  at  the  jail  that  he  had  been 
arrested for urinating in the parking lot. 
 

The applicant’s group commander became aware of the arrest in October 
199x.  On December 20, 199x, he was convicted and sentenced to report to the 
xxxxxxx  Sex  Offender  Treatment  Program  as  a  sex  offender.    On  January  11, 
199x, his group commander relieved him of his position as xxxxxx of xxxxxx.   
 

On February 2, 199x, the applicant met with a mental health specialist at 
xxxx.    The  next  day,  the  mental  health  specialist  reported  to  the  applicant’s 
command that the applicant was in denial and should attend sex offender coun-
seling.    As  a  result  of  the  specialist’s  assessment,  the  applicant’s  command 
ordered him to undergo evaluation at the xxxxxxx Hospital.  

 
On  March  3,  199x,  the  applicant  was  screened  for  alcohol  abuse  at  an 
addiction treatment clinic.  The counselor reported that the applicant had indi-
cated that his current situation was his “first major negative consequence from 
drinking.”    She  stated  that  the  applicant  had  explained  that,  on  June  22,  199x, 
after drinking three beers from his six-pack, he needed to urinate and urinated 
into one of his empty beer cans.  He told her that a man who had been standing 
three car lengths away saw him and called the police. 

 
On April 20, 199x, a psychologist and a physician in the xxxxx Hospital’s 
Department of Psychiatry evaluated the applicant.  He told the psychologist that 

he had urinated into a beer can instead of using a restroom.  He denied having 
any sexual deviation.  The applicant refused to sign a release so the doctors could 
see the results of the  psychological evaluation he underwent after his arrest in 
198x.  He told them he wanted to read the evaluation before they saw it.  The 
doctors  diagnosed  him  as  having  an  Axis  II  narcissistic  personality  disorder.  
Nevertheless, they found him to be “free of any unfitting psychiatric condition, 
thus fit for full duty.” 

 
On  May  30  and  31,  199x,  the  xxxx  medical  officers  signed  a  narrative 
summary of their evaluation of the applicant.  The summary states that the diag-
nosis  of  personality  disorder  was  “based  primarily  on  an  overall  psychiatric 
impression” and the presence of five or more of the diagnostic criteria for narcis-
sistic  personality  disorder  listed  in  the  Diagnostic  and  Statistical  Manual.1    It 
further states that the applicant “has given the impression of resisting evaluation 
and intervention. … [it is] consistent with narcissistic behavior.” 
 

On May 28, 199x, the applicant’s group commander initiated an ADB to 
consider  whether  he  should  be  discharged.    On  June  22,  199x,  the  ADB,  com-
posed  of  a  lieutenant  commander,  a  lieutenant,  and  a  lieutenant  junior  grade, 
conducted an oral hearing.  The applicant was represented by an attorney in the 
Naval Reserve JAG.  The applicant admitted that he had been arrested for fon-
                                                 
1      According  to  the  Diagnostic  and  Statistical  Manual,  “Many  highly  successful  individuals 
display  personality  traits  that  might  be  considered  narcissistic.    Only  when  these  traits  are 
inflexible, maladaptive, and persisting and cause significant functional impairment or subjective 
distress  do  they  constitute  narcissistic  personality  disorder.”    The  diagnostic  criteria  are  the 
following: 
 

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack 
of  empathy,  beginning  by  early  childhood  and  present  in  a  variety  of  contexts,  as 
indicated by five (or more) of the following: 

(1)  has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and 

talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) 

(2)  is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty 

or ideal love 

(3)  believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood 

by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 

(4)  requires excessive admiration 
(5)    has  a  sense  of  entitlement,  i.e.,  unreasonable  expectations  of  especially 

favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations 

(6)  is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or 

her own ends [continued on next page] 

(7)  lacks empathy:  is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and 

needs of others 

(8)  is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 
(9)  shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes 

dling his genitals in public in 198x and 199x.  He explained that the 198x incident 
was due to intoxication and that the 199x incident was due to intoxication and 
his  distress  over  the  xxx  of  the  OIC  who  was  transferred  after  the  applicant 
reported his shortcomings.  He admitted that he had a personality disorder but 
stated that he did not usually abuse alcohol and disliked the taste of alcohol.  His 
attorney at the ADB described the 199x incident as follows: 

 
[A]fter the stress of relieving [the OIC] and being a high-strung, top performer, 
he cracked a little.  He went to a park, drank a six-pack of beer, was peeing in a 
bottle,  maybe  he  started  to  feel  good,  and  he  was  kind  of  touching  himself.  
Somebody looked at it. . . . 
 
 His attorney attributed the applicant’s initial refusal to admit that he had 
a problem to the fact that he had not wanted to put himself in the same category 
as the sex offenders he had met in group therapy who had done heinous things. 

 
Several witnesses appeared on the applicant’s behalf.  One former super-
visor,  a  senior  xxxxxx,  stated  that  he  did  not  think  the  applicant  had  any 
personality traits that interfered with his job performance, that the applicant was 
a very valuable member of the unit, and that he trusted the applicant to run the 
station as xxxxxxxxxxx, but that the applicant had not reported his arrest to his 
command.   

 
Another witness, the applicant’s deputy group commander, described the 
applicant as a “top-notch performer,” but that he had been removed as xxxxxx 
because  they  had  lost  confidence  in  him  after  his  second  arrest.    The  deputy 
group commander stated he would “take him back immediately” as a xxxxx and 
would have him as an officer in charge if he were convinced that the applicant 
had successfully dealt with his problem.   

 
The applicant’s group commander, a captain, testified that he had spoken 
with the applicant several times regarding the OIC’s relief for cause.  He stated 
that the applicant was an excellent xxxxx and superb acting OIC.  Regarding the 
applicant’s  future  value  to  the  Coast  Guard,  he  stated,  “there’s  a  limitation  on 
some of the billets that he could, he would not serve in at this point, like com-
mand and control type billets.  But I’d take him in a heartbeat on my staff.” 

 
The group surface operations officer stated that she would look forward 
to  working  with  the  applicant  again  if  the  applicant  had  counseling  and  got  a 
“clean bill of health.”  The group engineer testified that he would be happy to 
have  the  applicant  serve  under  his  command  again  and  that  he  should  be 
retained if he continued in therapy. 

 

On August 30, 199x, the ADB unanimously recommended that the appli-
cant be retained upon condition that he successfully complete the court-ordered 
sex offender program.  Among other things, the ADB found that the applicant 
had a personality disorder of which he was aware; that he knew he needed coun-
seling; and that his prognosis for successful completion of the treatment program 
was  good.    The  ADB  also  found  that  the  applicant  had  numerous  marks  of  7 
(best) in his performance evaluations and that several officers had testified that 
his job performance was exceptional and that they would like to have him under 
their  command  again.    The  ADB  concluded  that  the  applicant’s  grief  over  the 
OIC’s death had caused him to drink alcohol, which had “affected his ability to 
control his personality disorder.”  It recommended that he refrain from drinking 
alcohol  and  be  retained  in  the  Coast  Guard  if  he  successfully  completed  sex 
offender treatment. 

 
On February 1, 199x, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the Comman-
der’s recommendation to CGPC with a signed statement from his therapist, who 
is a licensed psychologist, and the therapist’s supervisor, a doctor of psychology.  
They stated that the therapist had met with the applicant 11 times and that the 
applicant  was  making  “satisfactory”  progress  on  the  issue  of  denial  and  “very 
good”  progress  overall.    They  also  stated  that  the  prescribed  duration  of  the 

 
On  October  17,  199x,  the  applicant’s  group  commander  forwarded  the 
ADB’s report, concurring in the findings, opinions, and recommendations.  The 
group commander stated that the applicant’s therapist reported that he was mak-
ing satisfactory progress.  The group commander also asked that the applicant 
not be transferred from the group so that he would receive consistent treatment 
and support from those most familiar with his situation. 

 
On  December  7,  199x,  after  reviewing  the  report  of  the  ADB  and  the 
record,  the  Commander  of  the xxxx  Coast Guard  District  recommended  to  the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) that the applicant be discharged for 
misconduct.  The Commander found that several of the endorsements offered at 
the ADB’s hearing by the applicant’s former supervisors were qualified.  He also 
cited the applicant’s previous alcohol incident and arrest for indecent exposure, 
“compulsive” personality disorder, and two page 7s for poor attitude (198x) and 
violations  of  visiting  hours  and  location  (198x).    He  further  noted  that  the 
applicant had “said he had told his command about the arrest when he hadn’t” 
and  told  conflicting  stories  about  the  199x  incident.    Moreover,  he  stated  that 
children were among the witnesses to the 198x incident.  Furthermore, the appli-
cant required two years of treatment and then one year of after-care.  He con-
cluded that the applicant’s “contributions and value to the Coast Guard do not 
outweigh the seriousness of his offense, the damage done by his behavior or the 
risk of reoccurrences.” 

applicant’s treatment was typical. Regarding the applicant’s diagnosis, they said 
that the applicant did not have a mental disorder other than Axis I diagnoses of 
“adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  disturbance  of  emotions  and  conduct”  and 
“alcohol abuse” (or “alcohol intoxication”).2   

 
The  applicant’s  therapists  further  stated  that  personality  testing  did  not 
support a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, impulse control disorder, 
or exhibitionism.  The applicant did not meet the criteria of “an enduring pattern 
of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of 
the individual’s culture . . . manifested in two or more of the following areas: (1) 
cognition,  (2)  affectivity,  (3)  interpersonal  functioning,  (4)  impulse  control.”  
They defined “an enduring pattern [as] inflexible and pervasive across a broad 
range  of  personal  and  social  situations.”    The  psychologists  further  stated  that 
the applicant’s “history of meritorious service in the Coast Guard would rule out 
a personality disorder.” 

 
In  his  rebuttal,  the  applicant  also  included  three  affidavits  from  former 
superiors in which those officers restated their respect for the applicant’s job per-
formance and their willingness to work with him again.  He also stated that there 
were no alcohol incidents in his record. 

 
On February 1 and 12, 199x, the applicant’s group commander sent mes-

sages concerning the applicant’s possible retirement under TERA to CGPC. 

 
On February 29, 199x, the then Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard reported 
the  following  to  CGPC  concerning  the  police  reports  on  the  applicant’s  two 
arrests: 
 
The report of June 13, 198x, says that five witnesses, two men and three 
women,  observed  respondent  on  the  beach  at  a  state  park  lying  on  his 
back with his bikini swim trunks pulled down in front so that his erect 
penis  was  exposed  and  that  he  was  fondling  it  while  appearing  to  be 
looking  at  a  young  girl.    The  Sheriff’s  Office  custody  report  of  July  23, 
199x, says that three witnesses, two men and a woman, observed respon-
dent  in  a  trailer  court  parking  lot  standing  between  two  cars  with  his 
penis in his hand masturbating.  When one of the men yelled at him he 
stopped and ran into the public restroom. 
 
 The Chief Counsel advised CGPC that recommendations of both the ADB 
and  the  xxxxx  District  Commander  had  “an  adequate  basis  in  the  record.”  
Therefore,  CGPC  could  either  approve  the  ADB’s  recommendation,  discharge 
                                                 
2  The psychologists stated in one place that the diagnosis was “alcohol abuse,” but in another 
that is was merely “alcohol intoxication.”  They ruled out “alcohol dependency.” 

the  applicant  for  misconduct,  or  place  the  applicant  on  probation.    The  Chief 
Counsel later amended this list to include the option of retirement under TERA 
although the applicant’s rating, xxxx, was not one of those listed as eligible for 
TERA in ALCOAST 007/96.  

 
On March 12, 199x, the Chief of the Administrative Division recommend-
ed  that  the  applicant  be  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    On 
March 29, 199x, the Commander of CGPC ordered that the applicant be honor-
ably discharged “by reason of unsuitability due to having a diagnosed person-
ality disorder,” pursuant to Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
On April 15, 199x, and again a year later, the applicant’s therapist signed 
statements indicating that he found “no support for a diagnosis of a narcissistic 
personality disorder.”  The applicant had shown no enduring pattern of behavior 
or substantial impairment of functioning, and he met none of the criteria for a 
personality disorder.  The therapist strongly criticized the diagnosis made by the 
doctors at xxxxxxx Hospital and the ADB’s inexpert analysis.  He said that the 
applicant’s conduct could “be interpreted much more sensibly as an adjustment 
disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and alcohol abuse.”  
He  had  referred  the  applicant  for  treatment  for  post-traumatic  stress  disorder.  
He  stated  “categorically  that  [the  applicant]  does  not  have  and  never  has  had 
narcissistic  personality  disorder,  or  any  other  personality  disorder,  by  any 
plausible  reading  of  the  criteria.”    He  opined  that  discharging  the  applicant 
“based  on  the  diagnosis  of  narcissistic  personality  disorder  is  a misuse  of  psy-
chology.” 
 
 
On  May  9,  199x,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  Article 
12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  had  served  16  years,  11  months,  and  11 
days on active duty.  The narrative reason for discharge given on his DD214 is 
“unsuitability”; the separation code is GFX (“involuntary discharge approved by 
recommendation of a board when a personality disorder exists, not amounting to 
a  disability,  which  potentially  interferes  with  assignment  to  or  performance  of 
duty”);3 and a reenlistment code of RE-3G (“eligible for reenlistment except for 
disqualifying factor:  condition (not physical disability) interfering with perform-
ance of duty”). 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

                                                 
3   The Board notes that, because the ADB’s recommendation was not approved, the applicant 
possibly should have been assigned a separation code of JFX:  “involuntary discharge directed by 
established  directive  when  a  personality  order  exists  .  .  .  .”    However,  the  applicant  did  not 
request that his separation code be corrected.   

 
Article  12-B-16  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST  M1000.6A) 
authorizes  enlisted  personnel  to  be  discharged  by  reason  of  unsuitability  by 
direction of the Commandant.  Article 12-B-16.a. states that “Discharge by reason 
of  unsuitability  will  not  be  issued  in  lieu  of  disciplinary  action  except  upon 
determination by the Commandant that the interests of the Service as well as the 
individual will best be served by administrative discharge.” 
 
 
Article  12-B-16.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  unsuitability  dis-
charges for alcohol abuse, pursuant to Article 20-B-2, or for personality disorders 
“[a]s determined by medical authority.” 
 
 
Article 12-B-18.b. of the Personnel Manual authorizes the Commander of 
the Military Personnel Command to discharge an enlisted member for miscon-
duct upon civilian conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude; for fre-
quent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil authorities; or for sexual 
perversion, including indecent exposure. 
 

Article  20.A.2.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  defines  an  alcohol  incident  as 

follows: 
 
Any behavior in which the use or abuse of alcohol is determined to be a 
significant or causative factor and which results in the member’s loss of 
ability to perform assigned duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed 
Services, or is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
of federal, state, or local laws.  The member need not be found guilty at 
court martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment 
(NJP) for the behavior to be considered an alcohol incident.  However, the 
member  must  actually  consume  alcohol  for  an  alcohol  incident  to  have 
occurred. 
 
 
According to Article 20.B.2.h.2. of the Personnel Manual, “[e]nlisted mem-
bers involved in a second alcohol incident will normally be processed for separa-
tion in accordance with Article 12.B.16.” 
 

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. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to 

10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The 
Chairman, acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recom-
mended disposition of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that rec-
ommendation. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

7. 

The  applicant  twice  pled  guilty  to  charges  of  indecent  exposure.  
He  admitted  that  he  had  drunk  large  quantities  of  alcohol  at  the  time  of  each 
incident. 

6. 

5. 

Despite the recommendation of the ADB, the Commandant appar-
ently  determined  that  the  applicant  was  a  liability  for  the  Coast  Guard  and 
should be discharged.  Given his record, the Board finds that the Commandant 
committed  no  error  or  injustice  in  deciding  that  the  applicant  should  be  dis-
charged. 
 
 
The  applicant’s  conduct  qualified  him  for  discharge  on  several 
bases:  Both incidents constituted alcohol incidents under Article 20.A.2.d. of the 
Personnel  Manual.  Under  Article  12-B-18.b.,  both  incidents  qualified  the  appli-
cant  for  a  misconduct  discharge  because  the  incidents  involved  “moral  turpi-
tude” and because indecent exposure is evidence of sexual perversion.  Finally, 
the applicant’s diagnosed narcissistic personality disorder qualified him for dis-
charge under Article 12-B-16.b. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  be  reinstated  or  granted  a 
 
TERA retirement because his therapist has contradicted the diagnosis made by 
the doctors at xxxxxxxx Hospital.  He alleged that the diagnosis of his therapist, 
made  after  many  counseling  sessions,  must  be  more  credible  than  a  diagnosis 
made after one session at the hospital.  However, the medical officers at xxxxxx 
Hospital found that the applicant met at least five of the diagnostic criteria for a 
narcissistic  personality  disorder  and  that  he  was  resistant  to  evaluation  and 
treatment.    Although  the  applicant  apparently  became  more  amenable  to 
treatment after his evaluation at xxxxxx Hospital, the Board is not convinced the 
medical officers were wrong.  In light of their findings and the applicant’s con-
duct, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of 
the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  diagnosing  the  applicant  with  a 
narcissistic personality disorder. 
 
 
No member of the Coast Guard has a right to a TERA retirement.  
TERA is a discretionary authority granted by Congress to the Commandant to 
reduce  forces  by  retiring  members  who  would  not  otherwise  be  eligible  for 
retirement for a few years.  The Coast Guard did not err when it withdrew its 
alleged offer to grant the applicant a TERA retirement. 
 

8. 

 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Coast Guard erred or committed injustice by discharging him by reason 
of unsuitability due to a personality disorder. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

9. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  former  XXXXX, 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 

 
 
Mark A. Holmstrup 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

USCG, is hereby denied.