DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-020 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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.  The BCMR received 
the  application  for  correction  on  December  10,  2000,  and  docketed  the  case  on 
January 11, 2001, upon receipt of the applicant’s military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  9,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  seaman  apprentice  (SA;  pay  grade  E-2)  in  the 
Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  upgrading  the 
reenlistment  code  from  RE-4  (ineligible  for  reenlistment)  to  RE-1  (eligible  to 
reenlist) and to change the narrative reason for separation shown on his DD 214 
(discharge form) from “unsuitability” to something else. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that he was not unsuitable for military service.  He 
alleged  that  he  joined  the  Coast  Guard  after  graduating  from  high  school  in 
XXXX because he thought his father wanted him to and because he “was young 
and  did  not  know  where  [his]  life  was  heading.”    He  alleged  that  after  he 
finished boot camp and was assigned to a cutter in XXXXXXX, he and his fiancée 
“started having a lot of problems.”   
 

 
The applicant alleged that around Christmas 1993, he asked for leave but 
it was denied because he was not married.  He alleged that he asked for leave 
because  his  girlfriend  called  and  said  she  was  pregnant.  Therefore,  he  left  his 
station without leave to visit his girlfriend, but she had a miscarriage soon after 
he arrived. 
 
The applicant alleged  that after he returned to his station, he was repri-
manded,  fined  half  a  month’s  pay,  and  confined  to  ship  for  two  weeks.    He 
stated that he knew he “got off light and that they could have done worse” to 
him.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  wrote  a  letter  explaining  his  actions  to  his 
commanding officer but that the commanding officer did not receive it until after 
he was reprimanded. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that a few weeks later, his fiancée phoned and said 
she was dating someone else and that she would only stay with the applicant if 
he left the military.  Therefore, he “asked around” and was referred to the unit’s 
chaplain.  The chaplain told him that the only way to get out of his enlistment 
early was to get into serious trouble or be found unfit.  The applicant alleged that 
he  did  not  want  to  get  into  trouble,  so  when  the  chaplain  gave  him  a  Taylor-
Johnson  Temperament  Test,  he  “answered  the  questions  so  it  would  look  like 
[he] had problems.”  He alleged that he was then referred to a psychologist, who 
told him that he did not have any problems but that it would be good for him to 
get out of the military. 
 
The applicant stated that he regrets his actions and would like to go into 
 
law enforcement but is unable to because of the RE-4 and “unsuitability” on his 
DD 214.  He has worked as an internal investigator for XXXXX for four and one-
half  years  and  as  a  civilian  undercover  agent  for  a  local  narcotics  unit  for  six 
months.  He stated that his discharge was his own fault and that now he “would 
just like the chance to make up for [his] past with doing something good for [his] 
future.” 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  has  previously  tried  to  get  his  record  cor-
rected by writing to the Coast Guard and his senators, congressmen, and state 
representatives.  However, he did not learn about the BCMR until recently, when 
he discovered it on the internet. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted three letters of refer-
ence.  An assistant district attorney XXXXXXXXXXXX, wrote that the applicant is 
“a  self-motivated  individual  who  takes  his  job  [XXXXXX]  and  responsibilities 
very seriously.”  He stated that the applicant continued to work despite having 
been slashed several times on the hand by a shoplifter he caught.  He stated that 
the applicant had served very responsibly for local narcotics agents by observing 
“numerous purchases  of meth[amphetamine] producing materials  ... in bulk at 

XXXXXX” and reporting the purchasers’ physical descriptions and license plate 
numbers to the police.  His efforts allowed the police to close several “meth labs” 
in the parish.  He stated that the applicant “would be an excellent employee and 
a  vigilant  police  officer  ...  .    He  is  an  articulate,  polite,  and  extremely  hard 
working young man.” 
 
 
A sergeant in the Ouachita Parish narcotics unit wrote that on two occa-
sions  the  applicant  and  another  guard  at  the  XXXXX  had  provided  critical 
information about bulk purchases of ingredients that resulted in his unit closing 
down methamphetamine laboratories in the parish. 
 
The  applicant’s  supervisor  wrote  that  as  a  guard  at  XXXXXXX  the 
applicant “has accomplished many duties with the highest professionalism.”  He 
described  the  applicant  as  a  “very  motivated  self  starter  who  would  be  a 
tremendous asset to any law enforcement agency.  His ability to make decisions 
under pressure is unmatched in my division.” 
  

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On  XXXXXXXX,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a term  of 
four years and began boot camp.  On XXXXXXXX, he was transferred to his first 
billet, which was on a cutter.   
 
 
From  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  the  applicant  was  absent  without 
leave from the cutter.  On XXXXXX, he was taken to mast for the unauthorized 
absence,  fined  one-half  of  one  month’s  pay,  and  restricted  to  the  ship  and 
assigned extra duties for three weeks.   
 
 
On  his  first  performance  evaluation,  dated  XXXXXX,  the  applicant 
received one mark of 1 (out of a possible 7), three marks of 2, three marks of 3, 
and  eight  marks  of  4.    His  conduct  was  rated  unsatisfactory  and  he  was  not 
recommended  for  advancement.    The  cutter’s  operations  officer  noted  that  he 
had been absent without leave for nine days and that upon  his return, he had 
“continually made known [his] desire to leave the Coast Guard.”  The operations 
officer also noted that the applicant had  failed to adapt to the shipboard envi-
ronment.  
 
 
six months’ performance probation and made the following entry in his record: 
 

On January 11, 1994, the cutter’s executive officer placed the applicant on 

On  Thursday,  XXXXXXXX,  you  departed  [the  cutter]  without  leave,  and 
remained  absent  for  a  period  of  nine  days.    It  is  doubtful  you  would  have 
returned if I had not alerted your parents to your disappearance.  Worried, and 
concerned for your welfare, they searched for, found and convinced you to call 
me.  After a long conversation with me you decided to voluntarily return to [the 

cutter].  Your absence and mistrust place an unnecessary burden on your ship-
mates who had to perform your duties for you.  As a result of this incident, you 
received NJP [non-judicial punishment].  In addition you have expressed a lack 
of  interest  in  fulfilling  your  Coast  Guard  duties  and  have  requested  a  release 
from your enlistment contract. 
 
This is to inform you that I am contemplating administratively discharging you 
for  unsuitability,  specifically,  inaptitude  in  demonstrating  a  general  lack  of 
adaptability, in accordance with section 12-B-16 of the USCG Personnel Manual, 
COMDTINST M1000.6A. ...  

 
On  January  18,  1994,  the  applicant’s  command  referred  him  to  a  Navy 
 
psychologist for evaluation.  The referral indicated that the applicant wanted to 
leave the Coast Guard and was being considered for an administrative discharge.  
The evaluation was necessary to determine whether the applicant was mentally 
responsible and fit for continued sea duty.  The referral also noted that a chaplain 
had “administered a Taylor-Johnson Temperament Test and found the attitude 
scale to be ‘extreme’ with regards to low attitude.  The Chaplain further felt that 
this member could slip into depression with suicidal ideations.” 
 
 
On February 7, 1994, the applicant’s psychologist reported that he told her 
that he had joined the Coast Guard solely because his father had wanted him to 
join the military and because every male member of his family had been in the 
military.    He  “admitted  to  suicidal  ideation”  prior  to  going  on  unauthorized 
leave but stated that suicide was not an option for him because he did not want 
to kill himself and only wanted the situation to be different.  The applicant told 
the  psychologist  that  he  suffered  from  frequent  headaches,  nervous  stomach, 
dizziness,  moodiness,  shyness,  trouble  concentrating  and  sleeping,  poor 
memory,  over-sensitivity,  and  changes  in  appetite.    He  also  reported  feeling 
depressed, sad, confused, guilty, and anxious.   
 
 
The  psychologist  found  that  he  had  a  history  of  letting  others  make  his 
decisions  for  him  and  diagnosed  him  with  a  dependent  personality  disorder.1  

                                                 
1  According to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 
(DSM-IV), someone with a dependent personality disorder has a “pervasive and excessive need 
to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation ... as 
indicated by five (or more) of the following:  [the person] 
 
1.  has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassur-

2.  needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life; 
3.  has  difficulty  expressing  disagreement  with  others  because  of  fear  of  loss  of  support  or 

ance from others; 

approval; 

4.  has difficulty initiating projects or doing things on his or her own (because of a lack of self-

confidence in judgment or abilities rather than a lack of motivation or energy); 

She reported that the applicant “manifest[ed] a longstanding disorder of charac-
ter and behavior which is of such severity as to render [him] incapable of serving 
adequately in the Coast Guard. ...  Although [he] is not presently considered sui-
cidal or homicidal, he is judged to represent a continuing danger to self or others 
if retained in military service.  [He] is deemed fit for return to duty for immediate 
processing for administrative separation, which should be initiated expeditiously 
by his command.”   
 
 
On February 10, 1994, the cutter’s commanding officer (CO) informed the 
applicant that he had initiated action to discharge him for unsuitability due to a 
personality disorder.  He further informed him that his poor performance marks 
supported  a  general  rather  than  honorable  discharge  but  that  the  type  of  dis-
charge  he  received  would  be  determined  by  the  Military  Personnel  Command 
(MPC).  The CO also informed him that he had a right to consult with an attor-
ney and to submit a statement on his own behalf.  However, the applicant signed 
an acknowledgment in which he waived his right to consult an attorney and to 
submit  a  statement  and  indicated  that  he  did  not  object  to  the  proposed  dis-
charge. 
 
 
On February 15, 1994, the CO asked MPC to discharge the applicant for 
unsuitability due to his personality disorder based on the psychologist’s diagno-
sis and the CO’s own observations.  The CO stated that despite numerous oral 
counseling  sessions,  the  applicant  had  failed  to  adjust  to  military  life  and  sea 
duty.  The CO recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge based 
on his poor marks and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
 
 
On March 3, 1994, MPC ordered that the applicant receive a general dis-
charge by reason of unsuitability, in accordance with Article 12-B-16 of the Per-
sonnel Manual, and a JFX separation code. 
 
 
On March 29, 1994, the applicant received his second and final perform-
ance evaluation.  He earned four marks of 1, four marks of 2, five marks of 3, and 
two  marks  of  4.    His conduct  was  rated  unsatisfactory  and  he  was  not  recom-
mended for advancement. 
 

                                                                                                                                                 
5.  goes  to  excessive  lengths  to  obtain  nurturance  and  support  from  others,  to  the  point  of 

volunteering to do things that are unpleasant; 
feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being unable to 
care for himself or herself; 

7.  urgently seeks another relationship as a source of care and support when a close relationship 

6. 

8. 

ends; 
is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself .” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On April 5, 1994, the operations officer made an entry in the applicant’s 
record documenting the fact that he had been taken to mast and awarded NJP for 
sexual harassment because of a “sexually explicit, demeaning, and inappropriate 
note” that he left on a female crewmember’s rack.  The operations officer wrote 
that the applicant’s “callous disregard for the feelings of [his] shipmates has been 
indicative of [his] performance onboard [the cutter].” 
 

On XXXXXXXXX, the applicant received a general discharge “under hon-
orable conditions” with an RE-4 reenlistment code, a JFX separation code, and a 
narrative reason for separation of “unsuitability.”  His average evaluation marks 
were 3.3 for military bearing, 3.2 for work performance, and 2.0 for professional-
ism. 
 

 
On  May  10,  2001,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  requested  relief  for 
untimeliness, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and lack of merit.  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  relief  should  be  denied  for  untimeliness 
because the applicant knew or should have known about the alleged errors on 
his DD 214 when he signed it at the time of his discharge.  Therefore, his applica-
tion  arrived  approximately  four  years  after  the  Board’s  three-year  statute  of 
limitation  expired.    The  Chief  Counsel  further  argued  that  the  applicant 
provided  “no  valid  reason  for  his  delay”  in  applying  to  the  Board  and  so  his 
application should be dismissed. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel also argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust his 
administrative remedies as required under 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b) by applying to the 
Discharge Review Board (DRB).  He alleged that under 10 U.S.C. § 1553 and 33 
C.F.R.  §§  51.3  and  51.4,  the  DRB  could  upgrade  the  applicant’s  reason  for  dis-
charge and reenlistment code. 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  further  argued  that,  should  the  Board  decide  not  to 
dismiss  the  case  or  deny  it  for  untimeliness,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be 
denied because he failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed any error or 
injustice in discharging him or issuing his DD 214.  The Chief Counsel stated that 
both the Personnel Manual and the Medical Manual provide that members ren-
dered unfit for duty because of a personality disorder should be administratively 
discharged.    He  alleged  that  the  applicant  received  all  due  process  required 
under  Article  12.B.16.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  that  the  JFX  separation 
code, RE-4 reenlistment code, and “unsuitability” on his DD 214 were properly 

assigned  in  accordance  with  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Hand-
book.   
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant had not proved that the psy-
chologist’s diagnosis was erroneous or that he no longer had a personality dis-
order.  He distinguished the applicant’s case from other cases in which the Board 
has corrected JFX separation codes by pointing out that this applicant was diag-
nosed with an actual personality disorder (as opposed to an adjustment disorder) 
and that his disorder had “repeatedly led to inappropriate behavior which was 
not  in  conformity  with  military  expectations.”    The  Chief  Counsel  also  alleged 
that, in light of the applicant’s poor performance and misconduct, his CO acted 
within his discretion in making him ineligible for reenlistment. 

 
Finally, the Chief Counsel argued that “while Applicant appears to have 
found an avocation of his liking, the evidence he presents of his job skills in that 
profession  has  no  direct  relevancy  addressing  his  ability  to  perform  the  duties 
and responsibilities of a member of the Armed Forces.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 11, 2001, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was 
received by the Board. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Article 12.B.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 … .”  
 

Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual lists personality disorders that qual-
ify a member for administrative discharge pursuant to Article 12 of the Personnel 
Manual.    The  list  includes  dependent  personality  disorders.    Chapter  3.F.16.c 
provides that personality disorders “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 
administrative channels (see Section 5-B).” 
 

 
The SPD Handbook provides that members who are discharged because 
of a personality disorder that does not amount to a disability shall be assigned a 
separation code of JFX, a narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disor-
der,” and a reenlistment code of RE-4 or RE-3G.  An RE-3G code means the dis-
charged member is eligible for reenlistment except for a “condition (not a physi-
cal disability) interfering with performance of duty.” 
 
 
Article 12.B.2. of the Personnel Manual provides that, to receive an honor-
able  discharge,  a  member  must  have  a  final  average  of  2.5  in  each  evaluation 
category.  Members being discharged for unsuitability whose final averages do 
not  meet  this  standard  may  be  awarded  a  general  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions. 
 

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 of the United States Code.  

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  case  should  be  dismissed  for 
failure to exhaust administrative remedies by applying to the DRB for a change 
of  discharge.    Under  33  C.F.R.  §  51.3,  veterans  “may  apply  to  the  DRB  for  a 
change in the character of, and/or the reason for, the discharge.”  However, the 
applicant  has  asked  primarily  for  a  change  in  his  RE  code.    RE  codes  are  not 
mentioned  in  either  the  DRB’s  enabling  statute  or  Coast  Guard  implementing 
regulations.  Although a change in the character of discharge ordered by the DRB 
may result indirectly in a change of RE code and the BCMR sometimes revises 
discharges along with RE codes, veterans currently need not apply to the DRB 
before applying to the BCMR when their requests concern their RE codes.   

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(b). The 
record indicates that the applicant signed and received his DD 214 in April 1994.  
He knew or should have known the nature of his separation and non-eligibility 
for reenlistment at that time.  Thus, his application was untimely by more than 
three years. 

The Board may waive the three-year statute of limitations if it is in 
the interest of justice to do so.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  To determine whether it is in 
the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should con-

sider the reasons for the delay and conduct a cursory review of the merits of the 
case.  Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Allen v. 
Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158,  164  (D.D.C.  1992).    The  applicant  stated  the  he  did  not 
apply to this Board earlier because he did not learn of its existence until recently. 
The Board finds that the applicant’s reason for delay is not compelling.  Never-
theless, the merits of his case must also be reviewed. 

The record in this case indicates that the applicant was diagnosed 
with a dependent personality disorder by a psychologist in February 1994 and 
was properly discharged for unsuitability pursuant to Article 12.B.16. of the Per-
sonnel Manual and Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual.  He was informed of the 
nature of his pending discharge and waived his right to consult with an attorney 
and to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The RE-4 reenlistment code, JFX 
separation code, and narrative reason for separation of “unsuitability” shown on 
the  applicant’s  DD  214  were  fully  supported  by  the  applicant’s  psychological 
diagnosis  and  history  of  misconduct  and  inaptitude  for  military  service.    His 
general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  was  also  correct  in  light  of  his 
poor  performance  evaluations.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not 
proved that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in awarding him a 
general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  due  to  unsuitability  with  a  JFX 
separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

The applicant alleged  that his RE-4 code  has prevented him from 
beginning  a  career  in  law  enforcement.    The  Coast  Guard  has  no  control  over 
what uses civilian employers make of the coded information on a DD 214.  Even 
if the applicant is now fit for a career in law enforcement, as he alleged, this does 
not mean that the military reenlistment code and reason for separation entered 
on his DD 214 are incorrect or unjust.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is not in 
the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case. 

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

on its untimeliness and on the lack of merit in his claim. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

  

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 

 

ORDER 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of 

his military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Laura A. Aguilar 

 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer