DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-112 
 
 
   

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
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 commenced on June 
28, 1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated March 30, 2000, is signed by the three duly appointed 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  seaman  xxxxxxx  who  served  as  a  xxxxxx  in  the  Coast 
Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that on May 30, 198x, he 
received  a  disability  discharge  based  upon  a  diagnosis  of  schizophrenia  or  schizoid 
personality  disorder,  rather  than  an  administrative  discharge  for  unsuitability  based 
upon a diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality disorder.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that when he was discharged on May 30, 198x, he should 
 
have  been  granted  a  disability  discharge  because  he  was  developing  schizophrenia.  
Instead, he was administratively discharged due to unsuitability because he had been 
misdiagnosed with a personality disorder.  He alleged that his administrative discharge 
was unjust because he was suffering from excessive stress, depression, and a schizoid 
personality  disorder,  which  impaired  his  ability  to  serve.    He  alleged  that  he  should 
have  received  a  disability  discharge  because,  if  he  had  been  properly  diagnosed,  he 
would have been found to be in the early stages of schizophrenia.  The applicant alleged 
that he now receives psychiatric treatment for this condition. 
 

 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that,  had  he  been  properly  diagnosed  by  the  Coast 
Guard  in  198x,  he  might  have  received  treatment  earlier  and  not  suffered  increasing 
psychiatric problems.  He stated that he was never properly diagnosed or treated until 
after he was incarcerated in 199x.  However, he did not submit any proof of his current 
diagnosis.1 
 
 
because he had just received his military records in March 1999. 

Finally,  the  applicant  alleged  that  his  application  to  the  Board  was  timely 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On December 15, 197x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for a 
term of six years under the delayed entry program.  On April 25, 197x, after completing 
his studies to be a xxx, the applicant joined the Coast Guard, obligating himself to four 
years of active duty.  After a few months of training, he was first assigned to the cutter 
xxxxxx.  While serving on the cutter, he was advanced from seaman recruit to seaman 
apprentice and then to seaman.   
 

In the fall of 197x, the applicant left the xxx to attend “A” school for the xx rating.  
In December 1978, he graduated, was promoted to xxxxxxx and was assigned to work 
in the xxxx at the Coast Guard xxxxxxx. 
 
 
On  August  27,  197x,  the  applicant  appeared  before  a  captain’s  mast  and  was 
awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP) for having sex with a seaman recruit who was 
a patient in the xxxxxx hospital.  He appealed the decision, but his appeal was denied 
on  September  26,  197x,  and  he  was  reprimanded,  fined,  restricted  for  30  days,  and 
demoted to pay grade E-3 (seaman).  However, he was allowed to continue working in 
the xxxxx rating, and his rate was noted as xxxxx. 
 
 
On  January  11,  198x,  the  applicant  again  appeared  before  a  captain’s  mast 
because a small amount of marijuana was found in his xxxxxx.  His appeal was denied 
on February 28, 198x, and he was reprimanded, fined, restricted, and demoted to E-2 
(seaman apprentice).  Since he continued to serve as a xxxxx, his rate was xxxxxx. 
 
 
tardiness. 
 
 
On  April  15,  198x,  a  doctor  noted  in  the  applicant’s  medical  records  that  the 
applicant  was  being  referred  to  the  base  psychiatrist  because  he  had  requested  an 
administrative discharge. 
                                                 
1  The BCMR wrote to the  Department of Veterans’  Affairs (DVA) seeking any post-discharge  medical 
records  in  its  possession.    On  August  5,  1999,  the  DVA  informed  the  BCMR  that  no  post-discharge 
medical records appeared in the applicant’s DVA file. 

On February 4, 198x, the applicant was formally counseled concerning repeated 

On April 24, 198x, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the xxx 

 
 
where he worked.  In his report, the doctor made the following observations: 
 

[T]his  young  man  has  continued  to  violate  military  rules  and  regulations.    He 
relates a poor attitude, is not motivated to change, and will continue to act out in 
a negative manner.  He dislikes and does not observe strict military discipline, 
regimentation, customs, rules and regulations, etc.  He is frequently late to work 
and often leaves prematurely.  He does not wear his uniform properly and needs 
constant supervision in his work with dental patients.  He does not conform to 
the standards imposed upon and required of other xx’s and may prove to be a 
decided liability not only to patients but himself.  He does not care to remain in 
the  Coast  Guard  and  should  be  discharged  as  unsuitable  for  further  service.  
Even if stripped of his xx rating and assigned to general Coast Guard duties, he 
will probably continue to manifest an apathetic attitude, do poorly, and get into 
more trouble.  There is no evidence of a psychotic thought disorder present at 
this time nor does he appear to be suffering from any organic illness.  His basic 
problem is that he cannot successfully deal and cope with authority figures and 
situations, military regimentation, and the responsibilities and demands of Coast 
Guard service.  His resentment is expressed in passive rebellion rather than overt 
aggression or hostility. 

 
 
The  doctor  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  a  passive-aggressive  personality 
disorder.  He stated that the applicant had “no disqualifying physical or mental defects 
which are ratable as a disability under the standard schedule for rating disabilities in 
current  use  by  the  Veterans  Administration.”    The  doctor  recommended  that  he  be 
discharged by reason of unsuitability under Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual. 
 
On May 9, 198x, the applicant’s commanding officer advised him in writing that 
 
he  was  being  recommended  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  because  of  his 
diagnosed passive-aggressive personality disorder.  The applicant signed the letter and 
indicated that he did not desire to make a statement. 
 
 
On  May  14,  198x,  the  commanding  officer  of  the  xxxxx  wrote  to  the 
Commandant recommending that the applicant be honorably discharged due to unsuit-
ability because of his record of misconduct and psychiatric diagnosis.  On May 22, 198x, 
the  Commandant  approved  the  recommendation  and  ordered  that  the  applicant  be 
discharged with a JMB separation code, which means unsuitable due to a personality 
disorder.   
 

On  May  28,  198x,  the  applicant  underwent  a  medical  examination  prior  to 
discharge.  The examining physician found that he was fit for administrative discharge 
and had no disqualifying disabilities.  The applicant signed a statement indicating that 

he agreed with the findings of his examining physician, including the finding that he 
was fit for duty, and that he did not wish to make a statement in rebuttal. 
 
On May 30, 198x, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard.  
 
His  discharge  form  (DD  214)  indicates  that  he  was  discharged  due  to  “unsuitability” 
with a JMB separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means not eligible for 
reenlistment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On February 11, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  relief  should  be  denied  because  the  applicant 
 
“has  failed  to  prove  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  either  an  error  or  injustice  that 
would merit the waiver of the Statute of Limitations.”  The Chief Counsel stated that the 
applicant knew or should have known that he had not been medically retired on the 
date  of  his  discharge,  May  30,  198x.    Therefore,  he  argued,  the  applicant  applied  for 
relief  more  than  xx  years  after  the  BCMR’s  3-year  statute  of  limitations  had  expired.  
Furthermore, he stated, the applicant failed to produce any evidence in support of his 
allegations of error. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant was properly discharged by reason 
of unsuitability, pursuant to Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual and Article 5.B. of 
the Medical Manual.2  He stated that personality disorders “are not physical disabilities, 
as  that  term  is  used  in  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  (PDES).”    Physical 
disability  benefits,  he  argued,  are  intended  “to  compensate  members  whose  military 
service is terminated due to a service connected disability, and to prevent the arbitrary 
separation  of  individuals  who  incur  disabling  injuries.”    PDES  Manual,  Article  1.A.  
Therefore, he argued, because the applicant’s condition was not a ratable disability, he 
has not proved any error on the part of the Coast Guard. 
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel stated, “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that the psycho-
logical diagnosis was somehow inaccurate, any error committed was harmless or to the 
Applicant’s benefit because the Applicant could have been discharged for misconduct.”  
Members discharged for misconduct, he stated, do not receive transition benefits. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

                                                 
2  The Chief Counsel cited to editions of the manuals that were not yet issued when the applicant was 
discharged  in  198x.    However,  the  provisions  of  the  manuals  in  effect  in  198x  were  not  substantially 
different than those in the more modern manuals cited by the Chief Counsel. 

 
On February 14, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond.  On March 1, 2000, the applicant respond-
ed.  He alleged that he would never have been taken to mast if he had been properly 
diagnosed  and  treated  by  the  Coast  Guard.    He  also  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard’s 
failure to diagnose and treat his schizoid and passive-aggressive personality disorders 
led to his schizophrenia. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Applicable Provisions of the Personnel Manual 
 

Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 19xx (CG-207) 
authorized  administrative  discharges  for  members  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    The 
conditions  listed  as  rendering  a  member  unsuitable  included  inaptitude,  apathy, 
defective attitude, and personality disorders listed in Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual 
(CG-294) “[a]s determined by medical authority.” 
 

Applicable Provisions of the Medical Manual 

 
The Coast Guard Medical Manual (CG-294) in effect in 198x governed the dispo-
sition  of  members  with  psychiatric  disorders.    According  to  Articles  5-C  and  5-D,  a 
member with either a schizoid or passive-aggressive personality disorder was eligible 
for an administrative discharge rather than a disability separation.  

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.   

 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552. The record indicates 
that  the  applicant  signed  and  received  his  discharge  documents  in  198x,  although  he 
alleged that he did not receive them until March 1999.  However, the Board finds that 
the applicant knew or should have known the non-disability nature of his separation in 
198x.  Thus, his application was untimely by more than xx years. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the 3-year statute of 
limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in the 
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should conduct a cursory 
review of the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).   

The applicant submitted no evidence indicating that he was unfit for duty 
by  reason  of  a  disability,  schizophrenia,  when  he  was  discharged  in  May  198x.    A 
cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with 
a passive-aggressive personality disorder by competent medical authority on April 24, 
198x,  and  properly  discharged  for  unsuitability  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.16.  of  the 
Personnel Manual and Article 5 of the Medical Manual.  Therefore, the Board finds that 
it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case. 
 
 
Moreover,  even  if  one  assumes,  as  the  applicant  alleged,  that  he  was 
suffering from a schizoid personality disorder in 198x which ultimately developed into 
schizophrenia, that in itself would not have made him eligible for a disability separa-
tion.    Under  Article  5  of  the  Medical  Manual  and  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, members with schizoid personality disorders were eligible for administrative 
discharge. 
 

5. 

untimeliness and on the lack of merit in his claim. 
 
 
 
 

ORDER 

 

6. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  based  both  on  its 

The application of former XXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 

 
 
Thomas A. Phemister