DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-032 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 24, 2001, 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  July  26,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former machinery technician third class (MK3; pay grade 
E-4), asked the Board to correct his military record by upgrading his reenlistment 
code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) to RE-3 (eligible to reenlist except for a dis-
qualifying factor; waiver required).  He alleged that his               , separation from 
active duty for “unsuitability” was unjust.  
 
The applicant alleged that in             he was assigned to a station almost 
 
500 miles from his family and friends and became quite homesick.  He alleged 
that his job performance was fine and that he completed all of the qualifications 
required  of  him  within  a  few  months  and  was  working  toward  advancement.  
However, he “had trouble adapting to [his] off-duty living.”  (His first billet had 
been much closer to home.) 
 
 
The applicant alleged that because of his homesickness, he contacted the 
Coast Guard’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in            and was referred to 
a social worker.  He began attending counseling sessions with her and felt that 

they  were  helpful.    He  also  sought  treatment  from  a  contracting  Coast  Guard 
physician, who prescribed Prozac for him.  He alleged that the physician never 
mentioned  a  diagnosis,  a  change  in  duty  status,  or  an  obligation to  inform  his 
command  of  the  prescription.    He  alleged  that  soon  after  he  began  taking  the 
Prozac,  the  physician  switched  his  prescription  to  Zoloft  because  he  “wasn’t 
feeling  any  changes.”    After  taking  the  Zoloft  for  a  couple  weeks,  he  told  the 
physician at a follow-up appointment that he still could not feel any change and 
did not like the side-effects of the drug.  The physician then discussed with him 
three types of depression—chemical, physical, and situational—and they agreed 
that his was situational.  Therefore, they decided that he should discontinue tak-
ing the Zoloft and continue with the counseling sessions, since he believed they 
were helping him deal with his homesickness and depression. 
 
The applicant alleged that he continued attending counseling sessions and 
 
tried, without success, to find another member with whom he could swap billets 
so  that  he  could  work  closer  to  home.    However,  when  he  had  completed  the 
maximum  number  of  counseling  sessions  allowed  by  the  EAP  (five),  he 
contacted a health services technician at his Coast Guard Group to see how he 
could  receive  more  counseling.    Shortly  thereafter,  his  unit’s  Officer  in  Charge 
(OIC), Executive Petty Officer, and Engineering Petty Officer called him in for a 
meeting to ask about his situation.  The OIC put him on light duty for 30 days 
and referred him to a contracting psychiatrist. 
 
The applicant alleged that he had two appointments with the psychiatrist, 
 
who advised him to adapt to his situation until an opportunity to move closer to 
home  arose.    After  these  appointments,  his  command  ordered  him  to  go  to  a 
Naval Hospital for evaluation by a clinical psychologist.  He alleged that the psy-
chologist discussed his diagnosis  with him  and advised him to continue coun-
seling to overcome his homesickness.  The psychologist also told him that he did 
not meet the criteria for inpatient admission, involuntary commitment, or medi-
cal board processing under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). 
 
 
The applicant alleged that one week after he returned to his unit from the 
hospital, he met with the same three officers, who told him that he could choose 
to continue his assignment at the unit or be discharged.  He alleged that they did 
not  mention  any  possibility  of  further  counseling  but  warned  him  that  if  he 
elected to be discharged, he might not be able to reenlist.  The applicant alleged 
that he was “only given a few days to make a decision,” felt rushed, and did not 
have all of the information he needed.  He alleged that he was allowed to speak 
with a member of the Coast Guard’s legal staff but was not certain he was asking 
the right questions about the consequences of his decision. 
 

 
The applicant alleged that he elected to be discharged because he would 
not have received further counseling.  He alleged that no one indicated that he 
could continue counseling or seek a transfer.  Therefore, he felt that being dis-
charged was his only option, even though his homesickness and depression were 
not affecting his job performance in any way.  For example, he alleged, he “suc-
cessfully served as the station’s Morale Officer, and was always planning events 
to keep the crew in a positive frame of mind.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he was discharged one month later.  He alleged 
that he “did not receive any documentation for review or action until the after-
noon of [his] date of discharge, and still did not fully understand all of the rami-
fications.”  
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted two affidavits from 
 
Coast Guard members.  A chief warrant officer who supervised the applicant at 
his first duty station from           through           stated that the applicant had been 
a very competent and effective member who learned quickly, gave “100 percent 
to the task at hand,” and showed very good judgment and integrity.  He stated 
that  the  applicant  was  always  cheerful  despite  long  work  hours  and  stressful 
situations. 
 
 
A petty officer who was the applicant’s roommate and who worked in the 
same duty section at his final billet stated that the applicant had been a “strong 
and  respected  leader”  at  the  unit  and  was  often  consulted  by  junior  members 
needing advice.  He stated that the applicant often worked overtime voluntarily 
to help train and qualify other members.  He stated that the applicant was a very 
hard  worker  who  “work[ed]  well  with  others”  and  that  many  members  at  the 
station were sad when he chose to leave the Coast Guard. 
 

 

 
On             , at the age of 21, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard 
Reserve for a term of eight years under the delayed entry program.  On          , he 
enlisted  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard  for  four  years,  through                            .    After 
completing boot camp, he was initially assigned to a cutter near his hometown.  
He  served  on  the  cutter  for  about  two  years  and  then  attended  “A”  School  to 
become a machinery technician in         .  To attend “A” School, he had to obligate 
one more month of active service by extending his enlistment contract through                     
         .  
 
On                                  ,  after  graduating  from  “A”  School,  the  applicant  was 
 
assigned to a Coast Guard station approximately 500 miles from his hometown. 
The applicant also received several strong evaluations for his work at the station.  

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On                 , the applicant returned to the doctor, complaining of feeling 

In  addition,  on                                    ,  the  station’s  OIC  made  an  entry  in  his  record 
commending him for his superior performance as the unit’s Morale Officer.  On               
                      , he made an entry commending the applicant for his work for the 
engineering department and for his help in setting up a new engine room.   
 
 
On               , the applicant attended sick call and stated that his counselor 
had recommended that he take an antidepressant.  The doctor prescribed Prozac 
and told him to return in three weeks. 
 
 
On              , the applicant returned to the doctor for a follow-up.  He 
reported  that  he  had  stopped  taking  Prozac  three  days  earlier  because  he 
believed it was tiring him and slowing his thoughts.  He reported that his moti-
vation  had  increased  and  attributed  it  to  the  counseling  sessions.    The  doctor 
increased his prescribed dosage of Prozac and asked him to return in six weeks. 
 
 
lethargic due to the Prozac.  His prescription was changed to Zoloft. 
 
 
On              , the applicant returned to the doctor and stated that he had 
run out of Zoloft the week before and had not gotten more because he did not 
believe the Zoloft was helping him.  He told the doctor he still felt very anxious 
and believed his problem was homesickness.  The applicant said that he “hate[d] 
it here” and gave his doctor permission to discuss his problem with his station 
commander. 
 
 
On                , the applicant was evaluated by a psychologist in the Mental 
Health  Department  of  a  Naval  Hospital.    The  psychologist  noted  that  he  “was 
referred by self and command to [the clinic] for consultation because of recent 
symptoms  and  lack  of  response  to  treatment.”    He  noted  that  the  applicant 
complained  of  having  been  depressed  and  anxious  since  he  left  his  hometown 
region  to  attend  “A”  School  and  stated  that  he  wanted  to  go  home.    The 
applicant reported “periods of emotional lability withdrawal, sleep disturbance, 
appetite  disturbance,  discouragement,  financial  worries,  boredom,  tension, 
memory  problems,  moodiness,  edginess,  difficulty  concentrating,  fatigue, 
indecision,  bowel  problems,  stomach  distress,  irritability,  tension  headaches, 
loneliness, and a strong desire to transfer closer to his home.”  The psychologist 
concluded  that  the  applicant  would  benefit  from  more  intense  psychotherapy 
and  antidepressant  medication  but  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for  medical  board 
evaluation.  He also made the following psychiatric diagnoses: 
 

DSM-IV Diagnostic Impression: 
Axis I: 

  309.28,  Adjustment  Disorder  With  Mixed  Anxious  and  Depressed 
Mood, Moderate. 

Axis II:    301.40,    Obsessive-Compulsive  Personality  Disorder,  Moderate,  EPTE 
[existing  prior  to  enlistment],  With  Narcissistic/Dependent/Avoidant 
Features. 

Axis III:   No general or specific medical conditions are reported or known at this 

time. 

Axis IV:  Routine Stressors of Military Life.  Social Environment Stressors. 
Axis V:   60-51 Moderate Symptoms and Difficulty. 
 
 
On               , the applicant was notified that his OIC was recommending 
that he be honorably discharged from the Coast Guard for unsuitability due to 
his personality and adjustment disorders and that he not be eligible to reenlist in 
any military service.  The OIC stated that he was taking the action in accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  Medical  Manual  because  of  the  applicant’s  psychiatric 
diagnoses.  He advised the applicant that he was not entitled to a medical board 
but had a right to consult with an attorney and to submit a statement in his own 
behalf. 
 
 
On                , the applicant signed an acknowledgement of the notification.  
He  indicated  that  he  had  consulted  an  attorney  and  was  waiving  his  right  to 
submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also indicated that he did not object to 
his discharge or to receiving a reenlistment code that would prevent him from 
ever reenlisting in any military service.  
 
 
On            , the applicant’s Group Commander asked the Coast Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  to  discharge  him  for  unsuitability  due  to  his 
personality  and  adjustment  disorders.    He  reported  that  the  psychologist  had 
concluded that the applicant’s condition would probably not interfere with his 
performance of military duty but that he seemed to be “struggling with off-duty 
adjustment issues.” 
 
 
On                , CGPC ordered that the applicant be honorably discharged 
by  reason  of  unsuitability,  in  accordance  with  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  CGPC ordered that he be assigned a JFX separation code.  
 

On                            ,  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”); a narrative reason for separation of “Personality Disorder”; 
and  a  reenlistment  code  of  RE-4  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment).    He  was  dis-
charged approximately seven months before the end of his enlistment. 

 
Since  his  discharge,  the  applicant  has  received  an  Associate  in  Applied 
Science degree from a community college, and he has been accepted by a naval 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  May  29,  2001,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  the  requested  relief  by 
upgrading  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3G  and  by  upgrading  his 
separation code to KDB.   
 
 
An  RE-3G  code  means  that  the  veteran  is  eligible  to  reenlist  despite 
having  a  condition  that  interfered  with  his  performance  of  duty  (but  did  not 
amount  to  a  physical  disability)  as  long  as  he  receives  a  waiver  through  his 
recruiter.  A KDB separation code means that the member was voluntarily dis-
charged because retention on active duty would have imposed a hardship. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant’s 
adjustment  disorder—homesickness—was  the  primary  cause  of  his  discharge, 
rather than the personality disorder.  He alleged that there is no evidence that the 
applicant’s  diagnosed  disorders  interfered  with  his  performance  of  duty.    He 
alleged that the doctor’s reports indicate that the applicant was not mentally ill 
and had no thought disorders.  He also alleged that there is no indication in the 
record that the diagnosed disorders were considered permanent. 
 
 
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.    Therefore,  he  concluded  that, 
although there is no evidence that the Coast Guard committed any procedural or 
substantive error in discharging the applicant in accordance with the provisions 
of the Medical and Personnel Manuals, he “will not contest” an order upgrading 
the applicant’s RE and separation codes. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 31, 2001, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the  Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The  applicant 
responded on June 22, 2001, stating that he did not object to the recommendation 
of the Chief Counsel. 
 

shipyard  apprenticeship  program  to  train  for  a  journeyman’s  certificate  as  a 
pipefitter. 
 

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  (COMDTINST  M6000.1B)  lists  the 
personality disorders that qualify a member for administrative discharge pursu-
ant to Article 12 of the Personnel Manual.  The list includes obsessive-compul-
sive,  narcissistic,  dependent,  and  avoidant  personality  disorders.    Adjustment 
disorders are not included among the personality disorders listed. 

 
Adjustment disorders are, however, listed in Chapter 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.” 

 
Chapter 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 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. 
 
 
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 or 

RE–4 

12.B.12 

 

RE Code 
RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.16 

 
Explanation 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when a 
personality disorder exists, not amounting to a 
disability, which potentially interferes with 
assignment to or performance of duty. 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when a 
condition, not a physical disability, interferes 
with the performance of duty (Enuresis, motion 
sickness, allergy, obesity, fear of flying, et al.) 
Voluntary discharge [by direction] when 
continued retention in the military service 
would impose a hardship including hardship 

when a member assumes responsibility for the 
support of a dependent. 

 

 

 
 

 

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.  The application was timely.1 

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  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  primarily 
because  he  was  unhappy  with  his  circumstances  and  felt  very  homesick.  
Although he was diagnosed with a personality disorder, there is no evidence in 
the record that it interfered with his performance of duty at all.  His OIC appar-
ently let the applicant choose whether to stay through the end of his enlistment 
or  be  discharged  with  the  RE-4  and  JFX  codes,  and  the  applicant  voluntarily 
chose  the  latter  course  of  action.    Although  the  applicant  suggested  that  his 
choice was forced by the Coast Guard’s failure to offer him further counseling, 
he  did  not  prove  that  he  was  actually  denied  any  services  to  which  he  was 
entitled under Coast Guard regulations. 

 Given  the  applicant’s  psychiatric  diagnosis  and  long-term  com-
plaints of homesickness, the Board cannot find that the Coast Guard committed 
any error in discharging him in accordance with Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel 
Manual, which authorizes unsuitability discharges for members with personality 
disorders.  Under the SPD Handbook, members discharged because of personal-
ity  disorders  may  receive  on  their  discharge  papers  the  JFX  separation  code, 
“Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation, and an RE-4 or RE-
                                                 
1 Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), applications must be filed within three years of an applicant’s dis-
covery of an alleged error or injustice in the record.  The applicant was discharged on              .  
The application was not received by the Board until October 23, 2000, and it was not completed 
and docketed until the Board received his military records from the National Personnel Records 
Center on January 24, 2001.  However, the record indicates that the applicant signed and mailed 
his application and relevant evidence to the Board on October 20, 2000, prior to the expiration of 
the statute of limitations.  Therefore, the Board finds that the application was timely filed.  

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

The  Board  is  reluctant  to  counteract  the  assessment  of  the  appli-
cant’s  commanding  officer  concerning  his  aptitude  for  further  military  service.  
However, the upgrade from RE-4 to RE-3 that the applicant requested would not 
make him automatically eligible to reenlist.  He would still have to persuade a 
recruiter that the problem that caused his discharge no longer exists and that a 
waiver should be sought on his behalf to allow him to reenlist.  Therefore, and in 
light of the Chief Counsel’s recommendation, the Board finds that relief should 
be granted. 

The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board change the appli-
cant’s  SPD  code  to  KDB,  which  denotes  hardship,  and  his  RE  code  to  RE-3G.  
This  is  not  a  proper  combination  of  codes  according  to  the  SPD  Handbook.  
Members  discharged  for  hardship  receive  an  RE-3H  code  and  must  prove  to 
their recruiters that the financial or familial hardship that caused their discharge 
no longer exists.  Moreover, the Board finds that a “hardship” discharge and the 
RE-3H  code  are  not  reasonably  descriptive of  or  appropriate to the  applicant’s 
situation.  Hardship discharges are commonly awarded to members when their 
continued  military  service  would  cause  a  significant  problem  for their  families 
because of the families’ financial needs or a dependent’s severe medical problem.  
There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  suggesting  that  the  applicant’s  continued 
service would have troubled anyone but himself.  Furthermore, with an RE-3H 
code, the applicant would be able to reenlist in any military service as long as he 
could  prove  that  his  enlistment  would  cause  no  hardship  for  his  family.    He 
would not have to satisfy his recruiter that homesickness would no longer be a 
problem. 

3G reenlistment code.  The applicant’s commanding officer chose to give him an 
RE-4 code, purposefully making him ineligible for reenlistment.   

The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant relief despite 
the lack of error in the applicant’s record.  He based his recommendation on the 
fact that the applicant’s personality disorder had not interfered with his perform-
ance of duty and on the fact that the cause of the applicant’s discharge—home-
sickness—is not necessarily a permanent condition. 

The Board could grant relief simply by changing the applicant’s RE 
code to RE-3G, which may properly be used with the JFX separation code accord-
ing to the SPD Handbook.  However, this would leave the JFX code and “Person-
ality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation on the applicant’s discharge 
papers.  As stated above, the record indicates that the applicant’s diagnosed per-
sonality disorder was not the actual cause of his discharge but an excuse used by 
his command to allow him to leave the service.  Although the Coast Guard’s use 
of the JFX in the applicant’s case is not clearly erroneous, it is not the most accu-

rate SPD code available and may be unduly prejudicial since it gives the impres-
sion that the applicant was discharged because of a severe personality disorder 
that  rendered  him  unfit  for  duty.    In  the  Board’s  experience,  the  JFX  code  is 
usually assigned to members whose personality disorders have resulted in signi-
ficantly aberrant behavior or misconduct.2 

 
9. 

In the past, the Board has corrected the records of applicants dis-
charged  because  of  adjustment  disorders  by  changing  their  SPD  codes  to  JFV, 
based  on  the  finding  that  the  words  “Personality  Disorder”  on  the  applicant’s 
DD 214 are unjust in light of the circumstances surrounding his or her discharge 
and the fact that veterans must show their discharge papers to future employers.  
See, e.g., BCMR Docket No. 1999-050.  The JFV code means that the member had a 
condition, such as motion sickness, obesity, or fear of flying, that interfered with 
his  or  her  performance  of  duty.    To  be  eligible  to  reenlist,  the  member  must 
satisfy a recruiter that the condition no longer exists.  The Board finds that the 
JFV  code  most  accurately  describes  the  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s  dis-
charge.  The SPD Handbook allows members assigned a JFV separation code to 
receive an RE-3G reenlistment code, as recommended by the Chief Counsel. 

 
 
10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted by correct-
ing his SPD code to JFV, his narrative reason for reenlistment to “Condition, Not 
a Disability,” and his reenlistment code to RE-3G. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

                                                 
2  See,  e.g.,  BCMR  Docket  No.  1999-037  (member  frequently  exhibiting  inappropriate  sexual 
behavior  over  a  two-year  period  was  twice  diagnosed  with  an  “adjustment  disorder  with 
disturbance  of  conduct”  and  discharged  with  a  JFX  code  and  “Unsuitability”  as  the  narrative 
reason for separation); BCMR Docket No. 1998-099 (member twice arrested for indecent exposure 
was diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder and discharged with a GFX code (which 
means the same thing as JFX except that the member is entitled to appeal his discharge before an 
Administrative  Discharge  Board)  and  a  narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “Unsuitability”); 
BCMR  Docket  No.  2000-142  (member  diagnosed  with  a  borderline  personality  disorder 
performed highly dramatic “suicide gesture” to try to hasten his release and was discharged with 
a  JFX  code,  RE-3G  reenlistment  code,  and  “Personality  Disorder”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation). 
 

 
•  Block 26 on the DD 214 shall be corrected to show SPD code “JFV.” 

•  Block 27 on the DD 214 shall be corrected to show reenlistment code 

 

 

“RE-3G.” 

•  Block 28 on the DD 214 shall be corrected to show “Condition, Not a 

Disability” as the narrative reason for separation. 

ORDER 

 

 

The application of                                                 for correction of his military 

 
record is granted as follows: 

   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 

 
Harold C. Davis, M. D.  

 

 

 

 
John A. Kern