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
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2001-072
Also on January 31, 2001, the CO recommended to the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) that the applicant be honorably discharged for unsuitability, in accordance with Article 12.B.16., based on his diagnosed personality and adjustment disorders. of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms states that a member’s DD 214 should show a separation code and reenlistment code “as shown in the SPD Handbook or as stated by [CGPC] in the message granting discharge authority.” The...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-221
He asked that his narrative reason for separa- tion be changed to “honorable.” On March 27, 2003, after reviewing the record, the DRB concluded that the applicant was not suitable for service in the Coast Guard but might be able to serve in another Service under circumstances where claustrophobia is not an issue. Instead, the Medical Manual and the DSM classify such phobias as anxiety disorders or panic disorders, which are not personality disorders.9 Because the applicant was never...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-200
unsuitability due to a personality disorder with an RE-4 reenlistment code. Article 12.B.16 provides for discharge by reason of unsuitability due to personality disorders as listed in the Medical Manual. The applicant’s current request does not challenge his reenlistment code and the Board will not render a decision on it at this time, but will allow the applicant six months from the date of this final decision to request a review of his reenlistment code.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2003-015
PM Article 12.B.16.b authorizes unsuitability discharges for members diagnosed with one of the “personality behavior disorders … listed in Chapter 5, CG Medical Manual … .” Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) lists the person- ality disorders that qualify a member for administrative discharge pursuant to Article 12 of the Personnel Manual. of the Medical Manual states that schizoaffective disorder and psychotic disorder NOS are disqualifying for military service and...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2008-127
However, CGPC stated, the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder, but with an adjustment disorder. of the Personnel Manual, and the separation code to JFV when the diagnosis of personality disorder was absent, uncertain, or not supported by inappropriate behavior.6 In this case, CGPC recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s DD 214 to show separation code JFV and Article 12.B.12. Accordingly, the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected to show “Condition, Not a...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-035
10 of the United States Code. In 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability, with a JFX (personality disorder) separation code, and an RE-4 reenlistment code. The applicant’s challenge to his discharge by reason of personality disorder has been rendered moot because the Vice Commandant’s final action on his DRB application changed the separation code, and therefore, the reason for his separation from JFX (personality disorder) to JNC...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-158
Upon dis- charge from the hospital on September 23, 1994, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, 1 marital problems, and depression. The psychiatrist diagnosed him with a “personality disorder not otherwise specified, [with] borderline [and] dependent traits”;2 episodic alcohol abuse; and disorders. He is poorly motivated for continued military service.” The psychiatrist rec- ommended that the applicant be administratively discharged “for personality disor- der.” On...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2001-032
The Chief Counsel alleged that in discharging the applicant, the Coast Guard was essentially complying with his request since the record indicates that his command gave him the option of staying. narrative reasons for separation which might apply to the applicant’s case: The SPD Handbook includes the following combinations of codes and SPD Code JFX Narrative Reason for Separation Personality Disorder JFV Condition, Not a Disability 12.B.12 RE-4, RE-3G, or RE-3X KDB Hardship RE-3H...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2001-111
1995), in determining whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board must consider the reasons for the applicant’s delay and “make a cursory review of the potential merits of the claim.” In this case, he argued, the Board should deny the request for untimeliness because the applicant “has failed to offer substantial evidence that the Coast Guard committed either an error or injustice by not referring his case to a physical evaluation board.” The Chief...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-134
of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms states that a member’s DD 214 should show a separation code and reenlistment code “as shown in the SPD Handbook or as stated by [CGPC] in the message granting discharge authority.” The narrative reason for separation on the DD 214 must be whatever is specified by CGPC. The applicant was diagnosed with an anxiety and adjustment disorder and his CO recommended his discharge pursuant to Article 12.B.12.a. In light of the...