DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-037 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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.  The BCMR 
docketed this case on January 6, 1999, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 4, 1999, is signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxxx  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct her military record by changing the reenlistment code, narrative reason 
for  separation,  and  separation  authority  on  her  discharge  form  (DD  214).    She 
asked  that  her  reenlistment  code  be  changed  from  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment) to RE-3Y (eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor: 
unsatisfactory performance); that the narrative reason for separation be changed 
from “Unsuitability” to “Convenience of the Government;” and that the separa-
tion  authority  be  changed  from  Article  12.B.16  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
(COMDTINST M1000.6A) to Article 12.B.12.a or 12.B.9. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that during her service in the Coast Guard, she was 
subject to “continuous harassment by the males in [her] command.”  Therefore, 
she alleged, she suffered emotional distress, and “the command classified [her] 
as not suitable for military service in order to prevent [her] from filing sexual dis-

crimination grievances.”   She stated that her command “maliciously” began to 
process her for discharge after she complained about the sexual harassment.   
 

The applicant further stated that her command was in such a hurry to dis-
charge her, they did not provide her with the required pre-separation counseling.  
By  hurrying  her  discharge,  she  alleged,  her  command  discharged  her  two 
months before she became eligible to receive any veterans benefits or educational 
benefits.1  She alleged that prior to discharge, she had paid $1,700 into an educa-
tional account, which she cannot get back. 
  
 
The applicant alleged that she was not unsuitable for military service.  She 
stated that her (a) prompt advancement from seaman recruit to seaman appren-
tice, (b) performance as a civil rights leader, member of the color guard, and fre-
quent volunteer at Coast Guard functions, and (c) receipt of a letter of achieve-
ment and Team Commendation Ribbon show that she was suitable for military 
service.  She alleged that before being discharged, she was not suffering from an 
adjustment disorder but from “being centered out and personally attacked by the 
one Command.” 
 
 
so that she can serve in the Coast Guard Reserve. 
 

The applicant further stated that she wants her reenlistment code changed 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On  September  24,  199x,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a 
term  of  four  years.    Her  first  post  was  xxxxxx.    She  enrolled  for  educational 
benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) on October 8, 199x.  She began 
training and on October 18, 199x, qualified as a pistol marksman. 
 

On January 1, 199x, the applicant qualified as a xxxxx.  On March 14, 199x, 

her commanding officer designated her a drug urinalysis sampling observer.  

 
On  May  19,  199x,  the  applicant  received  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP) 
from her commanding officer, a chief warrant officer, at xxxxx.  She was assigned 
marks of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best) for the performance categories 
Grooming, Integrity, Respecting Others, and Loyalty.  

 
On  May  28,  199x,  the  applicant  received  a  page  7  administrative  entry 

documenting the NJP and poor evaluation as follows: 
 
                                                 
1  In a phone call with BCMR staff, the applicant stated that she had not tried to apply for MGIB 
educational benefits because she was told by Coast Guard personnel that she would be ineligible 
due to her early discharge.  The applicant indicated that she would apply for MGIB benefits. 

[The applicant] has, on several occasions, been counseled on her hair and 
the fact that it is often messy and not in accordance with uniform regula-
tions.  This must be corrected at once.  I encourage [the applicant] to find 
a  better  way  of  keeping  her  hair  neat  or  find  a  different  style/haircut 
which will be easier to maintain. 
 
[The  applicant]  has  been  involved  with  several  incidents  in  which  her 
integrity was proven to be questionable.  She often exaggerates situations 
and when someone tries to discipline or counsel her, she will bring up, or 
make accusations, from prior incidents.  These are often totally unrelated 
matters and only an attempt to divert the attention from her. 
 
[The applicant] repeatedly makes comments and accusations concerning 
this command and the Coast Guard.  She does not hesitate trying to get a 
fellow shipmate in trouble to divert the attention from herself.  She even 
threatened to go to the press concerning her discipline. 
 
It is obvious by the above entries that [the applicant] is not showing the 
proper  respect  to  others,  nor  is  she  cooperating  in  the  team  effort  to 
achieve the common goals of this unit and the Coast Guard.  Many man 
hours have been lost in the effort to get [the applicant] on the right track.  
However,  all  tolerance  has  been  expended  and  any  further  infractions 
will not be tolerated and dealt with swiftly. 

 

On June 3, 199x, the applicant qualified as a xxxxxx.  On June 13, 199x, the 
applicant completed xxxxxx and was certified and designated a xxxxxx member. 

 
On  July  1,  199x,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  at  xxxxxxxxxx 
requested that she undergo a psychological evaluation.  He submitted the follow-
ing statements with his request to the psychologist: 

 
[The  applicant]  has  been  a  leadership  challenge  for  me  and  this  unit’s 
entire  chain  of  command  [since  she  reported  to  the  station].    She  has 
repeatedly  exaggerated,  lied  about  situations,  and  has  been  prone  to 
inappropriate impulsive behavior. 
 
Most recently while driving in her car with a fellow crew member, while 
in  civilian  clothes,  she  allegedly  grabbed  her  breasts  and  stated  in  so 
many words to the male person in the vehicle stopped in his car along-
side her, “Do you want some of these?” 
 
I have repeatedly counseled her on this type of behavior.  Not more than 
a month or two ago she received Non Judicial Punishment (NJP) for grab-
bing her breast in the unit’s cafeteria in front of other male members and 
stated that her tits itched. 
 

During  the  same  time  frame,  she  received  NJP  for  illegally  entering 
another member’s locker. 
 
When she was slow getting qualified, she blamed everyone else but her-
self for her slow progress.  She has difficulty accepting constructive criti-
cism. …  [Once] she alleged that a short lived, inappropriate relationship 
with  the  training  petty  officer  had  occurred  several  months  before  and 
that is why he was criticizing her.  After a thorough investigation, there 
was no evidence to confirm that the relationship occurred. 
 
Her relationship with the unit’s crew has deteriorated to a point at which 
it does effect [sic] the smooth and efficient operation of the unit.  Under 
my counsel she has been making what appeared to be a valiant effort to 
improve her relationship with the crew.  I was recently very impressed 
with her efforts … .   
 
She  presently  is  performing  law  enforcement  and  search  and  rescue 
duties.  I have some serious concerns about issuing a 9MM Baretta pistol 
and 15 rounds of ammunition to someone who “may” be suffering from 
some form of impulsive disorder. 
 
Also on July 1, 199x, the applicant was evaluated by a psychologist, who 
diagnosed  an  “adjustment  disorder  with  disturbance  of  conduct.”    The  psy-
chologist  stated  that  the  applicant  claimed  her  commanding  officer  and  a  few 
other people at xxxx were “out to get” her.  He reported that “[m]ost noteworthy 
is  her  increased  defensiveness,  perceptions  of  being  victimized,  and  difficulty 
assuming responsibilities for her part in any interpersonal conflicts.”  He further 
found  that  the  applicant  had  “some  difficulties  at  present  in  managing  her 
impulses”  and  that  her  “insight  and  judgment  are  also  questionable  at  the 
present time.”  He concluded that she “may pose a hazard to herself and/or oth-
ers if she were to work with and/or be issued any weapons at the present time.”  
He  advised  against  issuing  her  a  sidearm  and  recommended  that  she  receive 
psychological counseling. 

 
After her psychological evaluation, the applicant signed a statement indi-
cating that she disagreed with the diagnosis.  The applicant wrote that, when she 
arrived at xxxx, three people at the station told her that when the chief of the xxx 
department  received  news  she  would  be  assigned  there,  he  said  “Oh  great 
another  fucken  [sic]  female.”    The  applicant  further  stated  that  the  chief  had 
given her a negative page 7 for “being involved with rumors” within two weeks 
of her arrival.  She also alleged that the coxswain for her duty section did not like 
to  get  underway  with  females  and  therefore  delayed  signing  her  “pracs” 
(practical  qualifications)  while  the  male  seaman  apprentice  on  board  “had  no 
problem getting things signed off.”  The applicant stated that two other female 
seamen had been transferred out of the xxxx department and that the xxx depart-

ment at xxxx had a four-year history of “problems with females.”  The applicant 
further  wrote,  “I  feel  that  with  the  history  of  problems  dealing  with  females 
there, that I was never given the opportunity to work well.  From being treated 
this way from day one, I started to feel like there was nothing I could do, every 
time  I  brought  up  an  issue  it  would  be  used  against  me,  or  I  was  told  that  I 
exaggerated.”  She stated that the Coast Guard was trying to hide the problem at 
xxxx. 

 
In  early  July  199x,  the  applicant  was  transferred  from  xxxxx  to  Group 
xxxxxx,  where  she  temporarily  worked  on  the  administrative  staff  and  in  the 
mail room of the XXX (XXX).  On July 28, 199x, the applicant received a negative 
page  7  entry  from  her  commanding  officer  at  Group  xxxxx,  a  commander, 
because she had failed to obey a direct order to change “from her working blues 
to  her  trops  [tropical  whites]  prior  to  color  guard  practice”  and  afterward  fell 
asleep in her barracks instead of reporting back to work. 

 
On  August  8,  199x,  Dr.  x,  a  psychiatrist,  evaluated  the  applicant  at  the 
request of XXX xxxx Health Services because of her diagnosis by the psycholo-
gist.  Dr. x reported that the applicant blamed the conflict in xxxxxx on sexual 
harassment and claimed she was singled out because of her “sexuality and per-
sonality.”  The applicant told him the chief warrant officer who had sexually har-
assed  her  at  xxxxxx  had  been  investigated  twice  for  sexual  harassment.    Dr.  x 
found no evidence of an adjustment disorder and made no psychiatric diagnosis.  
He found her fit for full duty and fit to carry weapons.  

 
In early August 199x, the applicant received permanent change of station 
(PCS)  orders  to  xxxxxxxxxx.   On  August  15,  199x, the  applicant  completed  the 
qualifications  for  and  was  advanced  to  xxxxx.2    On  September  2,  199x,  she 
received  a  Meritorious  Team  Commendation  Ribbon.    On  September  10,  199x, 
the  commanding  officer  of  xxxxxxxx  wrote  a  letter  of  appreciation  for  the 
applicant’s “outstanding job presenting Colors for xxxxx Change of Command.”  
On October 7, 199x, the applicant qualified as a xxxx, and on November 18, 199x, 
she completed xxxxxxxxxxxxx Training.  On November 19, 199x, the applicant’s 
commanding  officer  certified  her  as  a  xxxxxxx,  “based  upon  an  evaluation  of 
your performance [by a board] and my opinion that you possess the judgment 
and maturity necessary to make proper decisions in the line of duty.” 
 
 
On January 20, 199x, the applicant received a negative page 7 entry from a 
lieutenant, her commanding officer at xxxxxxxxxxx.  The page 7 indicates that the 
applicant  was  45  minutes  late  for  work.    She  smelled  of  alcohol,  and  a  blood 

                                                 
2  Although the applicant’s record indicates that she was advanced to seaman in 199x, she was 
discharged in 199x at the rank of seaman apprentice. 

sample  indicated  that  her  blood  alcohol  content  was  0.14.    This  was  her  first 
alcohol  incident,  and  she  was  forbidden  to  drink  alcohol  until  after  an  alcohol 
abuse  screening  scheduled  for  February.    She  was  advised  that  any  further 
incidents would result in her discharge.  As a result of this incident, she received 
non-judicial punishment (NJP) and a mark of 2 for Health and Well-Being on a 
performance evaluation dated February 5, 199x. 
 
 
On March 17, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer forwarded to her a 
letter of appreciation from the xxxxxxx Police Department for her work during a 
visit  from  the  Secretary  of  xxx.    Also  on  March  17,  199x,  the  applicant’s 
commanding  officer  issued  a  positive  page  7  entry  commending  her  for  her 
service as a member of a boat crew that saved xx persons from a sinking vessel. 
 
On April 21, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer removed her quali-
 
fication  as  a  xxxxxxx  “due  to  continued  discipline  problems  and  lack  of 
maturity.”  She refused to sign the page 7 entry documenting this action. 
 
 
On  April  24,  199x,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  issued  another 
page 7 entry “for being disrespectful to her supervisor and for failure to assist in 
boat clean ups as required.”  When her supervisor telephoned her concerning the 
boat  clean  up,  she  apparently raised  her  voice  and  hung  up  on  him.    She  was 
advised that “[a]ny further incidents will result in further administrative action.” 
 
On May 6, 199x, the applicant was evaluated by Dr. z, the Senior Medical 
 
Officer at XXX xxxxxxx Health Services, at the request of her commanding officer 
following a “continuous pattern of inappropriate behavior.”  Dr. z reported the 
following based on his examination and information provided by her command: 
 

[The applicant’s] behavior has been observed declining over the past year 
and  she  has  become  extremely  disruptive  to  the  good  order  and 
discipline  of  xxxxxxxxxxx.    A  list  of  chronological  situations  that  have 
required  documentation  was  provided.    [Her]  behavior  appears  consis-
tent  with  the  same  pattern  exhibited  by  her  while  she  was  attached  to 
xxxxxxxxxxxx. 
 
The patient is exhibiting a pattern that is consistent with an Adjustment 
Disorder with Disturbance of Conduct and should be [discharged].  [She] 
is not considered mentally ill.  She has an adjustment disorder which is 
rendering  her  incapable  of  adequately  serving  in  the  US  Coast  Guard.  
She claims her behavior is the result of the atmosphere at Station xxxxxxx.  
She  stated  she  can  work  somewhere  else  besides  xxxxxxxxxxx  and 
perform her job very well. 
 

[The applicant] is competent and responsible for her behavior.  She does 
not present any psychiatric contraindication to any appropriate adminis-
trative/legal disposition. 

 
 
On May 7, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer at xxxxxxxx notified 
her  that  he  had  initiated  action  to  discharge  her  because  she  had  been 
“diagnosed with an ‘Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Conduct’ by [Dr. 
z], the Senior Medical Officer at XXX xxxxxxx, Health Services.” 
 
 
On May 19, 199x, the commanding officer of XXX xxxxxx made a page 7 
entry in her record commending her for “outstanding performance of duty while 
temporarily  assigned  to  XXX  xxxxxx  from  04  May  9x  to  12  May  9x.”    The 
commanding officer stated that during that short time, the applicant had labeled 
and inventoried over xxxxxxxx and entered them into the records without error. 
 
 
On  May  22,  199x,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  “strongly  recom-
mend[ed]” her for discharge based on her “performance related issues” and the 
diagnosis of Dr. z.  The commanding officer reported that she was a “leadership 
challenge for the entire chain of command.  In addition to three NJP’s, there have 
been countless [page 7s] and informal counseling sessions as well as continuous 
issues  concerning  her  qualification  process  and  her  ability  to  carry  out  her 
assigned  missions.”    He  stated  that  she  was  “prone  to  inappropriate  behavior.  
Many of her gestures, comments, and actions are of a sexual nature.” 
 
 
On May 26, 199x, the applicant underwent a physical examination prior to 
discharge.  Dr. z, who signed the report of the examination, found that she had 
no defects or diagnoses and was fit for full duty “and to perform duties at sea or 
foreign parts.” 
 
 
On June 17, 199x, the commander of Group xxxxxx forwarded the recom-
mendation by the commanding officer of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx that the applicant be 
discharged to the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  The commander of 
Group  xxxxxx  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  by  reason  of 
unsuitability.  He explained that, after her difficulties at xxxxxxxxxx, he “opted 
not to pursue separation but instead worked with the  nonrate detailer to have 
[the  applicant]  transferred  PCS  to  xxxxxxxxxxxx.    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxwas  chosen 
due to its numerous female petty officers and proximity to both Group xxxxxxx 
staff and the XXX xxxxxx Medical Officer. …  In conclusion, [the applicant] was 
afforded  a  ‘second  chance’  but  did  not  take  advantage  of  it  … .    I  believe  [the 
applicant] is incapable of functioning as a productive Coast Guard member … .” 
 
 
On June 25, 199x, CGPC approved her command’s recommendation and 
ordered that the applicant be discharged by reason of unsuitability under Article 

12.B.16  of  the  Personnel  Manual  no  later  than  July  22,  199x.    The  orders  also 
stated that the applicant’s SPD code should be JFX and that the narrative reason 
on  her  DD  214  “shall  only  indicate  the  appropriate  narrative  reason  for 
disch[arge] found in [the SPD Handbook].”   
 

On  July  22,  199x,  the  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  with  a 
separation  code  of  JFX  (which  means  “personality  disorder;  involuntary  dis-
charge directed by established directive when a personality disorder exists, not 
amounting to a disability, which potentially interferes with assignment to or per-
formance of duty”) and a RE-4 reenlistment code, pursuant to Article 12.B.16 of 
the  Personnel  Manual.    However,  the  narrative  reason  shown  on  her  DD  214, 
“Unsuitability,” is not listed in the SPD Handbook. 
 
Character Reference 
 
 
On May 22, 199x, the applicant’s supervisor at XXX xxxxx signed a letter 
stating that the applicant had been “a valuable and most resourceful asset to the 
XXX  staff.”    She  stated  that  the  applicant  was  “an  eager,  productive  team 
member,  making  her  a  dynamic  performer  within  our  office.”    The  supervisor 
further  stated  that  the  applicant  “revamped  and  reorganized  the  entire  mail 
room process” and prepared a standard operating procedure for the mail room 
process. 
 

 
On September 21, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the requested relief due 
to incompleteness or failure of proof.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant had failed to offer any proof 
that her command had discharged her to prevent her from filing a complaint of 
sexual  harassment.    He  stated  that  she  complained  of  sexual  harassment  at 
xxxxxxxxxxx but not at Xxxxxxxxxx, whose commanding officer initiated her dis-
charge.  The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant was transferred to Xxxxx to 
give her a “second chance,” but she failed to take advantage of it. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  “neither  the  Coast  Guard  nor  the  Board 
can effectively address the merits of this application because of its vagueness and 
the lack of proof” because the applicant failed to file either an informal or formal 
military civil rights complaint. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel also stated that, “[i]n the event that neither the Chair-
man,  nor  the  Board,  elects  to  dispose  of  this  case  as  recommended,  the  Coast 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

Guard requests immediate notice of that decision, including the reasons therefor, 
and notice as to any issues that the Chairman or the Board deems to have been 
raised  by  this  application,  so  that  we  can  take  appropriate  action.”    The  Chief 
Counsel  did  not  state that  the  case  involves  a  significant  issue  of  Coast  Guard 
policy, which would require review of any Board decision contrary to the Chief 
Counsel’s recommendation. 
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  22,  1999,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the 

 
 
views of the Coast Guard and invited her to respond within 15 days.   
 

On October 15, 1999, the applicant responded.  She stated that there is no 
proof  she  was  unsuitable  for  military  service.    Moreover,  she  argued  that  the 
report of Dr. x, a psychiatrist at XXX Xxxxx Health Services, and the letter of rec-
ommendation from her supervisor at XXX Xxxxx prove that she was suitable for 
military service. 
 
 
The applicant further stated that she was never told she could file a “for-
mal or informal military civil rights complaint” as discussed by the Chief Coun-
sel.  She asked for another chance to prove that she can be a valuable asset to the 
Coast Guard. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Coast Guard Regulations 
 
 
Article  12B.16  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  enlisted 
personnel to be discharged by reason of unsuitability at the direction of the Com-
mandant for inaptitude, personality disorders, apathy, defective attitudes, inabil-
ity  to  expend  effort  constructively,  unsanitary  habits,  alcohol  abuse,  financial 
irresponsibility, or sexual harassment.  Article 12.B.16.b of the Personnel Manual 
authorizes unsuitability discharges for members diagnosed with one of the “per-
sonality behavior disorders …  listed in Chapter 5, CG Medical Manual … .”  
 

Article 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) lists person-
ality  disorders  that  qualify  a  member  for  administrative  discharge  pursuant  to 
Chapter  12  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Adjustment  disorders  are  not  included 
among the personality disorders listed.  The list does include “personality trait(s) 
considered unfitting per paragraph 3-F-16.c.”  Article 3.F.16.c provides that per-
sonality and sexual disorders, personality traits, and “disorders of impulse con-
trol not elsewhere classified … may render an individual administratively unfit 
[for duty] rather than unfit because of a physical impairment.  Interference with 

performance of effective duty will be dealt with through appropriate administra-
tive channels (see Section 5-B).” 

 
Adjustment disorders are, however, listed in Article 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.” 

 
Article  3.F.16.d  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  adjustment  disorders 
“do not render an individual unfit because of physical impairment.  However, if 
these conditions are recurrent and interfere with military duty, are not amenable 
to  treatment, or  require  prolonged  treatment,  administrative  separation  should 
be recommended (see Section 5-B).” 
 

 

Article  12.B.9  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  the  procedure  for  dis-
charging  enlisted  members  “whose  performance  demonstrates  they  cannot  or 
will not contribute to supporting the Coast Guard’s missions.”  
 
 
Article  12.B.12.a  of  the  Personnel  Manual  permits  members  to  be  dis-
charged for the “convenience of the government” if they are unsatisfactory per-
formers. 
 
Article 1.E. of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms 
 
states  that  a  member’s  DD  214  should  show  a  separation  authority,  SPD  code, 
and  reenlistment  code  “as  shown  in  the  SPD  Handbook  or  as  stated  by  the 
[Military  Personnel  Command]  in  the  message  granting  discharge  authority.”  
The narrative reason for separation on the DD 214 must be whatever is specified 
by the Military Personnel Command. 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook states that members 
 
who  are  involuntarily  discharged  by  direction  “when  a  personality  disorder 
exists,  not  amounting  to  a  disability,  which  potentially  interferes  with  assign-
ment  to or  performance  of  duty”  shall  be  assigned  a  separation  code  of  JFX,  a 
narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “Personality  Disorder,”3  and  a  reenlistment 
code of RE-4 or RE-3G, which means eligible for reenlistment except for a “con-
dition (not a physical disability) interfering with performance of duty.” 
 
 
The SPD Handbook states that members who are involuntarily discharged 
by direction after performing “acts of unacceptable conduct (i.e., moral and/or 
                                                 
3  The applicant, however, received a narrative reason of “Unsuitability” with the separation code 
JFX and the reenlistment code RE-4. 
 

professional dereliction) not otherwise listed” shall be assigned a separation code 
of  JNC;  a  narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “Unacceptable  Conduct”;  and  a 
reenlistment code of RE-4. 
 

The SPD Handbook states that members who are involuntarily discharged 
by direction when they fail to perform duties and assignments satisfactorily shall 
be assigned a separation code of JHJ; a narrative reason for separation of “Un-
satisfactory Performance”; and a reenlistment code of RE-4 or RE-3Y (eligible for 
reenlistment except for disqualifying factor: unsatisfactory performance). 

 
The SPD Handbook states that members who are involuntarily discharged 
by direction when they have “a condition, not a physical disability, which inter-
feres with the performance of duty (Enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, obesity, 
fear of flying, et al.)” shall be assigned a separation code of JFV; a narrative rea-
son for separation of “Condition, Not a Disability”; and a reenlistment code of 
RE-4, RE-3G, or RE-3X (eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor: 
motion sickness or nonswimmer). 
 
 
 The  SPD  Handbook  states  that  members  who  are  involuntarily  dis-
charged by direction when the Coast Guard “desires to identify reasons collec-
tively  ‘All  other  reasons’  which  qualify  a  member  for  separation”  shall  be 
assigned a separation code of JND; a narrative reason for separation of “Separa-
tion  for  Miscellaneous/General  Reasons”;  and  a  reenlistment  code  of  RE-4  or 
RE–1. 
 
United States Code 
 
 
 

Title 38 U.S.C. § 3011(a) provides as follows: 

 

 

 

(1) who— 
 

(i)  who  [serves  at  least  three  years  of  continuous 

(A)  after  June  30,  1985,  first  becomes  a  member  of  the 

Except as provided in subsection (c)[4] of this section, each individual— 
 
 
Armed Forces … and— 
 
active duty] …; or 
 
(ii)  who  serves  in  the  Armed  Forces  and  is  dis-
charged or released from active duty (I) for a service-connected disability, 
for a medical condition which preexisted such service on active duty and 
which the Secretary determines is not service connected, for hardship, or 
for a physical or mental condition that was not characterized as a disabil-
ity and did not result from the individual’s own willful misconduct but 

 

                                                 
4  Subsection (c) of 38 U.S.C. § 3011 permits members to elect not to receive MGIB benefits.  This 
subsection does not apply to the applicant because she enrolled for MGIB benefits on October 18, 
199x.  

(2) 

(3) 

did interfere with the individual’s performance of duty, as determined by 
the Secretary of each military department in accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or by the Secretary of Transporta-
tion with respect to the Coast Guard … 
 
who,  except  as  provided  in  subsection  (e)  of  this  section, 
completed  the  requirements  of  a  secondary  school  diploma  (or  equiva-
lency certificate) …; and 
 
of this subsection— 
 
 
discharge; …  
is entitled to basic educational assistance under this chapter. [Emphasis 
added.] 

continues on active duty; 
is  discharged  from  active  duty  with  an  honorable 

who, after completion of the service described in clause (1) 

(A) 
(B) 

 
 

 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

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 
recommendation.  

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  change  her  reenlistment  code 
from  RE-4  to  RE-3Y  (eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor: 
unsatisfactory  performance);  her  narrative  reason  for  separation  from  “Unsuit-
ability” to “Convenience of the  Government”; and the separation authority for 
her discharge from Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual to Article 12.B.12.a or 
12.B.9.    She  alleged  that  her  discharge  was  the  result  of  sexual  harassment  by 
members of her command at xxxxxxxxxxx.   

The applicant presented no evidence to support her allegations that 
she was the victim of sexual harassment at either xxxxxxxxxx or Xxxxxxxxx, the 
unit whose command initiated her discharge.  Nor did she present any evidence 
that  she  was  discharged  for  unsatisfactory  performance  of  work  or  for  the 
convenience of the government. 
 

5. 

The evidence indicates that the applicant behaved inappropriately 
and  caused  conflict  at  xxxxxxxxxxxx  and  was  diagnosed  with  an  adjustment 
disorder.    She  was  then  given  a  “second  chance”  by  being  transferred  to 
xxxxxxxx.    However,  at  the  new  station,  the  applicant  again  behaved  inap-
propriately and was again diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  Her record 
of inappropriate behavior and psychiatric diagnoses supports her discharge for 
unsuitability under Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual. 

The applicant’s SPD code, JFX, is for a member involuntarily dis-
charged because of a personality disorder.  The applicant was diagnosed twice 
with  an  “adjustment  disorder  with  disturbance  of  conduct,”  rather  than  a  per-
sonality disorder.  There is no SPD code specifically for people diagnosed with 
adjustment  disorders.    However,  Article  5.B.3  of  the  Medical  Manual  clearly 
authorizes  administrative  discharges  for  members  whose  adjustment  disorders 
continue  to  cause  problems,  and  Article  12.B.16.b  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
authorizes unsuitability discharges for members with “personality behavior dis-
orders …  listed in Chapter 5, CG Medical Manual.”  There are a limited number 
of separation codes available to the Coast Guard; they cannot be tailor-made to 
reflect exactly the circumstances of each member’s discharge.  Therefore, given 
the lack of an SPD code specifically for members discharged due to adjustment 
disorders, the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed no error or injustice 
by assigning the applicant a JFX separation code. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

According to the SPD Handbook, members assigned the JFX SPD 
code receive a reenlistment code of either RE-4 or RE-3G.  The applicant has not 
proved that the Coast Guard erred or committed an injustice by assigning her the 
RE-4 reenlistment code.  Nor has she proved that she should have been assigned 
the reenlistment code RE-3Y for unsatisfactory job performance.  The record indi-
cates  that  her  administrative  work  was  greatly  appreciated  by  many  people  in 
the Coast Guard.  

The combination of SPD code and narrative reason for separation 
shown on the applicant’s DD 214 (JFX and “Unsuitability”) does not appear in 
the  SPD  Handbook.    Members  assigned  the  SPD  code  JFX  usually  receive  the 
narrative  reason  “Personality  Disorder,”  and  the  SPD  Handbook  no  longer 
includes  the  narrative  reason  “Unsuitability.”    However,  the  instructions  for 
completing  discharge  forms  (COMDTINST  M1900.4B)  apparently  permit  some 
flexibility, as commands are told either to follow the SPD Handbook or to assign 
members  whatever  codes  are  cited  in  the  member’s  discharge  orders  from  the 
Personnel Command.  Although the applicant’s discharge orders instructed her 
command  to  assign  her  a  narrative  reason  for  separation  from  the  SPD  Hand-
book, the Board does not believe that it would be in the applicant’s interest to 

change her narrative reason for separation from “Unsuitability” to “Personality 
Disorder.” 

The applicant also alleged that, because of her early discharge, she 
is ineligible for medical and educational benefits.  The applicant did not present 
any evidence indicating that she has been denied benefits to which she is legally 
entitled.  Apparently, she never applied for MGIB benefits because Coast Guard 
personnel told her that her early discharge made her ineligible.  The Chief Coun-
sel of the Coast Guard did not address the applicant’s eligibility for benefits in 
his advisory opinion to the Board.  The Board finds that under 38 U.S.C. § 3011, 
the applicant may be eligible for MGIB benefits because she was discharged due 
to an adjustment disorder and assigned an SPD code indicating she had a per-
sonality  disorder,  each  of  which  could  be  considered  a  “mental  condition  that 
was not characterized as a disability and did not result from [her] own willful 
misconduct  but  did  interfere  with  [her]  performance  of  duty.”  38  U.S.C. 
§ 3011(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I).    Because  the  applicant’s  eligibility  for  MGIB  benefits  is 
determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs [DVA] and she did not apply 
to the DVA prior to applying to the Board, the Board finds that this issue cannot 
be properly addressed at this time.  Therefore, the issue of the applicant’s eligibil-
ity for MGIB benefits should be dismissed without prejudice.   

 
9. 

 
10. 

The applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard committed any 
error or injustice by discharging her under Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Man-
ual with an SPD code of JFX, a reenlistment code of RE-4, and a narrative reason 
for separation of “Unsuitability.” 

 
11.  Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  claims  concerning  her  eligibility  for 
MGIB benefits should be dismissed without prejudice and the remainder of her 
requests should be denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

 
 

 

ORDER 

 

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXXX, 
USCG, is hereby denied.  However, her claims regarding her MGIB benefits are 
dismissed  without  prejudice.    If  she  is  denied  MGIB  benefits  by  the  DVA,  she 
may  apply  again  to  the  BCMR,  and  the  Board  will  consider  her  allegations 
concerning her MGIB eligibility de novo. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf 

 

 
John A. Kern