DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-178 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on August 22, 
2000, 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  June  28,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 

 
 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxxxxxxx  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by 
 
making  him  eligible  for  separation  pay.    He  alleged  that  he  was  involuntarily 
discharged  due  to  chronic  motion  sickness  (air  sickness),  which  made  him  unable  to 
perform  his  duties,  but  received  no  separation  pay.    He  alleged  that  members  of  the 
other  armed  services  who  are  involuntarily  discharged  due  to  motion  sickness  are 
awarded separation pay and that it is unfair that the Coast Guard does not. 
 
 
The applicant further alleged that when he was being discharged, he was told he 
would receive separation pay if he joined the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  Therefore, 
he agreed to enter the IRR.  He also alleged that he was supposed to be evaluated by a 
medical board and had signed a form stating that he was “under medical board evalua-
tion.”  However, after he and his commanding officer (CO) signed the form, the word 
“board” was whited out, and he was never evaluated by a medical board. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On  xxxxxxxxxx,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  after  having  previ-
ously served 4 years and 7 months in the Air Force.  He reenlisted in the Coast Guard 
for a term of 3 years on May 30, 1995, and for another 4 years on April 10, 1998, so that 
his enlistment was due to end on April 9, 2002.  The applicant’s performance was exem-
plary:  he  received  a  personal  Commendation  Medal  for  his  first  two  years  of  service 
and several performance marks of 7 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best) over the 
course of his career. 
 
 
On April 30, 2000, the applicant’s CO did not recommend him for advancement 
in his rate because he had been medically grounded due to his complaints of chronic 
motion  sickness.    The  administrative  entry in  his  record  documenting  this  fact  stated 
that  the  motion  sickness  “makes  performance  of  rate  related  flight  duties  impossible.   
Member is currently under medical [word whited out] evaluation.” 
 
 
entry stating the following: 
 

On July 21, 2000, the applicant and his unit’s yeoman signed an administrative 

As a condition of receiving separation pay under 10 U.S.C. 1174, I hereby agree 
to enlist or extend in the ready reserve for a period of 3 years following my dis-
charge or release from active duty in addition to any remaining military service 
obligation.  I understand this agreement is made without regard to the reason for 
my  separation  or  my  eligibility  for  affiliation  with  the  ready  reserve.    Further, 
should  I  be  accepted  for  enlistment  or  extension  in  the  Coast  Guard  reserve,  I 
must execute the extension or enlistment contract as a condition of qualifying for 
separation pay….  I understand that if I stay in the reserve and later retire, my 
retired pay will be reduced by the amount of the enlisted separation payments 
received. 

 
 
On August 9, 2000, the applicant’s master chief wrote an e-mail message to the 
Master Chief Petty Officer (MCPO) of the Coast Guard stating that he found it unusual 
that, under the regulations, members who are released due to alcoholism or homosexu-
ality may receive separation pay but members who are released due to motion sickness 
may not.  The master chief also asked why the applicant was not entitled to a medical 
board.  He also stated that “we had requested to retain the [applicant] until tour com-
plete  [at  the  unit]  since  we  were  through  SPEAR  00  and  would  see  no  replacement.  
There are plenty of non flying jobs that we could utilize the member in for a year until a 
replacement was received during SPEAR 01.  We were floored when the discharge mes-
sage came in allowing for a 30 day discharge period.  Truly seems like a member with 
this  much  time-in-service,  being  discharged  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  should  be 
entitled to more than a handshake.”  The MCPO replied the same day, stating that “the 
decision stands and is valid from the legal review on this end.  However, I do suggest 
that [the applicant] file a BCMR on this.  The ruling in my opinion is a little ‘squishy’ at 
best and should be reviewed through the BCMR.” 
 

 
 On xxxxxxxxxx, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard 
with  a  JFV  separation  code,  an  RE-3G  reenlistment  code,  and  “convenience  of  the 
government, condition, not a disability” as his narrative reason for separation.  He had 
served 8 years, 10 months, and 15 days in the Coast Guard and a total of 13 years, 5 
months, and 15 days on active duty.  He was not authorized to receive separation pay. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 31, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request for 
relief.  In doing so, he adopted a memorandum on the case prepared by the Military 
Compensation Division (MCD).  MCD stated the following: 
 

[The  applicant]  was  separated  …  due  to  a  diagnosis  of  chronic  motion 
2. 
sickness  that  prevented  him  from  continuing  service  as  an  air  crew  member.  
Chronic  motion  sickness  is  medically  disqualifying  for  continued  active  or 
reserve  service,  although  it  is  not  a  disabling  condition.    Members  who  are  so 
diagnosed  are  normally  discovered  within  their  first  enlistment,  which  is  too 
early in their careers for Separation Pay eligibility … .  For a member to be diag-
nosed with motion sickness so severe as to prevent continued service as an air 
crew member so far into a career as [the applicant’s] is highly unusual and such 
diagnoses, along with other disqualifying, non-disabling medical conditions … , 
are often suspect.  Accordingly, the Coast Guard’s policy in these situations is to 
direct discharge under honorable conditions without authorizing Separation Pay.  
[10 U.S.C. § 1174(b)(1)] 
 
3. 
In cases similar to [the applicant’s], where conduct is not a bar to contin-
ued  service  in  the  Coast  Guard,  re-training  alternatives  are  examined  prior  to 
authorizing separation.  From the attached e-mails, you can see that [the appli-
cant] was offered a 60 day extension of his active service to determine if he could 
be re-trained for a different enlisted career field and avoid involuntary separa-
tion.  He declined this offer and explained that he was ‘moving to XXXXX.’  As a 
result of his declination of additional active service, his separation became, for all 
practical  purposes,  voluntary.  …  [Therefore,  under  10  U.S.C.  § 1174(e)(2)  and 
COMDTINST 1910.1, the applicant’s] case does not support entitlement to Sepa-
ration Pay. 
 
MCD attached to its memorandum copies of e-mail correspondence concerning 
the applicant’s entitlement to separation pay.  The messages show that he e-mailed the 
Chief  of  the  Enlisted  Advancements  and  Separations  Branch  at  the  Coast  Guard  Per-
sonnel Command (CGPC) on XXXXXXX, a month after his discharge, to ask for further 
news  about  his  request  for  separation  pay.    In  response  to  his  message,  which  was 
forwarded  to  MCD,  MCD  asked  CGPC  on  XXXXXXX,  (a)  if  the  applicant  had  been 
tested to determine whether his motion sickness was limited to air sickness or occurred 
at  sea  or  in  cars  and  (b)  if  he  had  been  offered  or  would  accept  a  lateral  transfer  to 

another rating, such as yeoman, storekeeper, or public affairs  specialist.  MCD stated 
that  the  Coast  Guard  “would  have  to  get  answers  to  all  these  questions  before 
considering the question of Separation Pay.”  

 
On XXXXXXX, the branch chief at CGPC responded to MCD and stated that a 
review  of  e-mail  correspondence  indicated  that  the  applicant  “was  offered  an 
opportunity to stay on active duty for an additional 60 days so ‘we could review our 
policy on Separation Pay’” but refused because he was moving to XXXXX.  The branch 
chief stated that the applicant had told Coast Guard medical personnel that his motion 
sickness, which he had had since childhood when traveling in planes, ships, and cars, 
had become progressively worse.  The branch chief at CGPC also stated that “[a]s far as 
I know, [the applicant] was not offered an opportunity to lateral to another rate.”  (Em-
phasis added.) 

 
MCD responded to CGPC the same day, stating that if the member was offered 
the chance to remain on active duty and turned it down, his separation “can only be 
characterized as voluntary” and he is not entitled to separation pay. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 31, 2001, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s submission at his address in XXXXXXXX and invited him to respond (or seek an 
extension of the time to respond) within 15 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
 

Article 5.C.30.c. of the Personnel Manual provides the following: 

When a commanding officer considers that an individual is no longer qualified 
to perform all the duties of his or her rate or rating for reasons other than incom-
petence, but is qualified or can within a reasonable time become qualified for a 
change to another rate or rating, he or she shall so inform Commander (CGPC-
epm) setting forth the reasons in detail.  A statement signed by the individual 
concerning the situation shall be forwarded as an enclosure.  When Commander, 
CGPC considers that the proposed change is required in the best interest of the 
Service, such change will be authorized.  The provisions of this article will not 
apply  when  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  person’s  fitness  for  retention  in  the 
Service because of mental or physical reasons. 

 

Under  Article  12.B.12,  members  with  certain  medical  conditions,  including 
chronic  motion  sickness,  obesity,  enuresis,  and  somnambulism,  may  be  administra-
tively separated from the Coast Guard for the “convenience of the government.” 

 
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) 
 
Under  Chapter  3.D.39.l.  of  the  Medical  Manual,  persons  with  chronic  motion 
 
sickness may not be enlisted.  According to Chapter 3.F.19.c., members with a physical 
disability that precludes them “from a reasonable fulfillment of the purpose of employ-
ment in the military service” should be evaluated by a medical board. 
 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (COMDTINST M1850.2C) 
 
 
Under  Article  3.D.4.  of  the  PDES  Manual,  a  medical  board  must  be  initiated 
whenever a member fails to meet the physical standards for retention unless he fails to 
meet the standards because of one of “those conditions set forth in chapter 12, Person-
nel  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1000.6  (series),  e.g.  obesity,  motion  sickness,  erroneous 
enlistment, etc.” 
 
10 U.S.C. § 1174 Separation Pay for Regular Enlisted Members 
 
 
Under this statute, members who have served between 6 and 20 years of active 
duty and who are involuntarily discharged are entitled to separation pay “unless the 
Secretary  concerned  determines  that  the  conditions  under  which  the  member  is  dis-
charged do not warrant payment of such pay.”  To receive separation pay, the member 
must agree to serve in the Ready Reserve (but need not actually qualify or be accepted) 
for at least three years.  No one who is voluntarily discharged may receive separation 
pay.  

Eligibility of Personnel for Separation Pay (COMDTINST 1910.1) 
 
 
Paragraph  4.a.  of  this  instruction  states  that  members  involuntarily  discharged 
may receive separation pay if they (1) have between 6 and 20 years of active service; 
(2) receive an honorable discharge; (3) agree to serve in the Ready Reserve for at least 3 
years (even if not qualified or accepted); and (4) are qualified for retention but are not 
recommended for retention or are involuntarily separated under a reduction in force. 
 
 
Paragraph 4.b. allows for payment of half the usual amount of separation pay if 
the member (1) has between 6 and 20 years of active service; (2) receives an honorable 
or general discharge; (3) agrees to serve in the Ready Reserve for at least 3 years (even if 
not qualified or accepted); and (4) is involuntarily separated and not recommended for 
reenlistment because of homosexuality, alcohol abuse, or security concerns or upon the 
expiration of an enlistment. 
 
 
Paragraph 4.d. states that a member “who declines training to qualify for a new 
skill or rating or who refuses to obligate service for a PCS transfer as a precondition to 
reenlistment or continuation on active duty” is not eligible for separation pay.  It also 

 

provides that separation pay may be denied upon a “[d]etermination in extraordinary 
cases by the Commandant that the conditions under which the member is separated do 
not warrant separation payment.  It is intended that this discretionary authority to deny 
payment be used sparingly.  This authority is not to be delegated.” 

 
Paragraph 5 provides that the “Commandant (G-P) will make determinations on 
cases not adequately addressed by the provisions of this Instruction.”  It also states that 
the Commandant “will determine if the member is entitled to receive full or half sepa-
ration pay upon receipt of the discharge package and will issue a separation authoriza-
tion  which  shall  direct  the  execution  of  the  discharge,  if  approved,  state  whether  the 
member is or is not entitled to separation pay, whether the member is or is not qualified 
to be enlisted in the Ready Reserve, and shall direct the execution of a Reserve enlist-
ment contract, if appropriate, as part of the discharge action.” 
 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant alleged that he was originally told that he would be evalu-
ated by a medical board.  The record indicates that, in advising him that he would not 
be recommended for advancement due to a medical condition that prevented him from 
flying, his commanding officer used an administrative form with language indicating 
that the applicant was being evaluated by a medical board.  The language is appropriate 
for  most  aircrew  members  grounded  due  to  chronic  medical  conditions.    However, 
under Article 3.D.4. of the PDES Manual, members with motion sickness are not enti-
tled to evaluation by a medical board.  Therefore, the form apparently was amended 
afterward to show that he was only undergoing medical evaluation, rather than evalua-
tion by a medical board.  While the form should have been amended before he signed it, 
the fact that it mentioned a medical board at the time that he signed it did not make the 
applicant entitled to a medical board.  The form did not concern the applicant’s rights to 
medical processing in any way; it merely advised him that because of his condition, he 
was not eligible for advancement in his rating.  Therefore, the Board finds that the fact 
that  the  form  used  to  advise  him  of  his  ineligibility  for  advancement  erroneously 
described the type of medical evaluation that he was undergoing did not entitle him to 
a medical board or create any error or injustice for the Board to correct. 

 
3. 

The applicant alleged that it was unfair for the Coast Guard to deny him 
separation pay when members of other military services who are separated because of 
motion sickness receive separation pay.  The Coast Guard has determined that a diag-

nosis of motion sickness more than 6 years into a member’s career is suspect.  Motion 
sickness  is  not  necessarily  objectively  verifiable.    Therefore,  under  Article  12.B.12., 
members  complaining  of  chronic  motion  sickness  are  subject  to  administrative  dis-
charge,  and  they  are not  eligible  for  separation  pay  under  COMDTINST  1910.1.    The 
applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  policy  and  regulations  regarding 
motion sickness, based on long experience and medical knowledge, are unreasonable or 
unjust.  Nor has he proved that they were unjustly applied to his case. 

Under  Article  5.C.30.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant’s  com-
manding officer should have made a determination as to whether he could be retrained 
to  serve  in  another  rating  and  made  a  recommendation  to  CGPC  about  a  possible 
change  of  rating.    The  record  is  unclear  as  to  whether  this  was  done.    The  applicant 
himself  made  no  allegations  regarding  any  offer  or  lack  of  offer  of  retraining.    The 
record  contains  a  statement  from  a  branch  chief  at  CGPC  indicating  that  he  had  no 
knowledge of any proffer of rating change, but this does not mean that the applicant’s 
commanding officer did not consider having him retrained or did not discuss the issue 
with the applicant.  The Chief Counsel’s advisory opinion states that the applicant was 
asked to remain on active duty for 60 days to determine whether he could be retrained, 
but  other  evidence  indicates  the  60-day  extension  was  offered  only  to  determine 
whether he might be eligible for separation pay.  The record indicates that he rejected 
any extension because he was moving to XXXXXXXX. 

Given  the  applicant’s  silence  on  this  issue,  his  rejection  of  the  proffered 
extension, and the inconclusiveness of the other evidence in the record, the Board finds 
that he has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his commanding officer 
failed to act in accordance with Article 5.C.30.c. or that his separation from the Coast 
Guard was involuntary. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 
 

 

denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

        

 
 
Michael J. McMorrow 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 
Nilza F. Velázquez