DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-072 
 
   
   

 

 
 

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  docketed  the 
application for correction on April 12, 2001, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application and military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 28, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

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 
on his discharge form (DD 214) from RE-4 so that he would be eligible to reenlist.  He 
was  discharged  on  March  21,  2001,  with  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  (ineligible  for 
reenlistment),  a  JFX  separation  code  (unsuitable  for  service  due  to  a  personality 
disorder), and “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation shown on his 
DD 214. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that he was assigned an RE-4 through no fault of his own.  
He  alleged  that  he  was  suffering  from  depression  and  was  encouraged  to  request  a 
discharge.  He alleged that although he requested the discharge, he had no intention of 
staying  out  of  the  military  permanently  and  now  cannot  reenlist.    He  alleged  that  he 
discussed the matter with the executive officer of his cutter, but that officer must have 
misunderstood his intention. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On                    , the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years.  
After completing boot camp, he was assigned to a cutter.  The applicant had difficulty 
adjusting  to  shipboard  life  and  sought  treatment  through  the  Coast  Guard’s  Employee 
Assistance  Program. 
  He  began  attending  counseling  sessions  with  a  clinical 
psychologist.  After he had exhausted his permitted number of counseling sessions, the 
psychologist recommended that he be allowed to continue therapy.  
 

On                        , with the applicant’s agreement, the clinical psychologist 
reported to his command that “[a]t best, this is a chronic adjustment disorder with periods 
of intense anxiety and depression.  At worst, he is experiencing a syndrome referred to as 
schizotypal[1] disorder, which has more of a long-term impact on social, vocational and 
personal adjustment.  Because of the severity of the potential impact on his career if the 
diagnosis is overstated, I am led to diagnose a moderately severe adjustment disorder at 
this time.” 

 
On                  , the applicant was seen by another clinical psychologist because he 
was  feeling  stressed  and  depressed.    The  psychologist  diagnosed  him  with  another 
adjustment  disorder,  “depressed  mood,”  and 
that  he  continue 
psychotherapy. 

recommended 

 
On                    , the applicant submitted the following statement to his command:   
 
In  my  short  stint  in  the  service,  I  have  worked  to  the  best  of  my 
ability.  It’s been difficult for me at times on the boat to deal with 
shipboard life.  To explain in detail all my reasons would be ineffec-
tual because many of my concerns I can’t change.  With respect to 
all parties concerned, I request discharge.  

 
 
On                    , the applicant underwent a medical evaluation pursuant to his 
possible discharge.  He told his cutter’s health specialist that he was suffering from bouts 
of  depression,  anxiety,  and  mood  swings.    He  stated  that  sometimes  he  felt  well  but 
sometimes  felt  afraid  to  stand  watches.    He  indicated  that  he  was  not  having  suicidal 
ideations but sometimes “wanted to cut his face off.”  He reported that his mother was bi-
polar.  
 

                                                 
1  Schizotypal  personality  disorder  is  a  “pervasive  pattern  of  social  and  interpersonal  deficits 
marked  by  acute  discomfort  with,  and  reduced  capacity  for,  close  relationship  as  well  as  by 
cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood 
and  present  in  a  variety  of  contexts  ...  .”    American  Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND 
STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH ED., TEXT REV. (DSM-IV-TR) (Washington, 
D.C.,  2000).    The  diagnosis  may  be  made  when  the  person  experiences  at  least  five  of  nine 
described symptoms. 
 

 
At the bottom of the health specialist’s notes, a doctor who was not a psychiatrist 
wrote that he had “reviewed psych consult,” diagnosed the applicant with “schizotypal 
disorder,” and “recommend[ed] admin[istrative] separation” since the condition was not a 
physical disability.  The extent to which the doctor actually examined and spoke with the 
applicant is unclear. 
 
 
On January 31, 2001, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) formally notified 
him that he was initiating his discharge under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual 
because  of  his  “inability  to  adjust  to  military  life  and  duly  diagnosed  adjustment  and 
personality  disorders.”    The  CO  also  notified  him  that  he  was  entitled  to  submit  a 
statement  on  his  own  behalf.    The  applicant  signed  a  statement  acknowledging  the 
notification and indicating that he did not object to being discharged.   He submitted  a 
copy of the letter he had written on January 28, 2001. 
 
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.  The CO wrote that he believed the conditions would persist and that treatment 
would be ineffective.  
 
 
On  February  27,  2001,  CGPC  ordered  the  CO  to  discharge  the  applicant,  in 
accordance with Article 12.B.16., no later than March 21, 2001, with a separation code of 
JFX (personality disorder).  The applicant was discharged on March 21, 2001, with the 
JFX  separation  code,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and  “Personality  Disorder”  as  the 
narrative reason for separation. 
 
 
On June 26, 2001, after the applicant filed his BCMR application, CGPC asked a 
psychiatrist to review his military medical record.  The psychiatrist wrote that the record 
“supports  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder  made  by  [the  first  clinical  psychologist  on       
, and by the doctor on             ].” 
 

 
On  September  14,  2001,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  requested  relief  for  lack  of 
merit.  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  applicant  had  “no  absolute  legal  right  to 
remain in the service until the expiration of his enlistment” and could be appropriately 
administratively discharged before that time. Giglio v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 160, 166 
(1989).  He also argued that, “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary,” the Board must 
presume that the Coast Guard officers involved in the applicant’s discharge “carried out 
their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 
1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  He 
argued  that  the  applicant  had  not  submitted  sufficient  evidence  to  prove  by  a 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  any  material  error  or 
injustice in discharging him with a JFX separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  only  error  that  occurred  in  processing  the 
applicant for discharge was that the doctor who evaluated him on               , failed to write 
in his report that the applicant was “mentally responsible” and able “to distinguish right 
from wrong and to adhere to the right” and that he had “the mental capacity to understand 
the action being contemplated,” as required under Article 12.B.16.h.  However, the Chief 
Counsel argued, the error was harmless because the applicant’s competency was not then 
and is not now in question.  Moreover, the Chief Counsel pointed out, the psychologist 
who  examined  the  applicant  on                          ,  reported  that  the  applicant  had  “adequate 
judgment; no memory impairment; congruent thought control; coherent thought process, 
... etc.” 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the 
applicant’s personality disorder is not a permanent condition and no basis for changing 
the nature of his discharge.  He pointed out that the applicant did not allege that he had 
been denied due process or that he did not have a personality disorder: he only asked for 
his RE code to be upgraded, and he submitted no evidence to support an upgrade. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 17, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 

 
 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  enlisted 
personnel with diagnosed personality disorders that are listed in Chapter 5 of the Medical 
Manual to be discharged by reason of unsuitability at the direction of the Commandant.  
 
 
Chapter  5.B.2  of  the  Medical  Manual  lists  personality  disorders  that  qualify  a 
member for administrative discharge pursuant to Article 12.B. of the Personnel Manual.  
The list includes schizotypal personality disorders.  Chapter 3.F.16.c provides that per-
sonality 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).”  
 
 
Adjustment disorders are not included among the personality disorders listed in 
Chapter 5.B.2. of the Medical Manual.  Chapter 5.B.3 of the Medical Manual states that 
adjustment disorders “are generally treatable and not usually grounds for separation,” but 
that members with adjustment disorders may be administratively discharged “when these 
conditions persist or treatment is likely to be prolonged or non-curative (e.g. inability to 
adjust  to  military  life  …).”    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  12.B.16.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  every  member 
discharged under the article shall be notified of the reason for he is being considered for 
discharge and shall be allowed to submit a statement on his own behalf.  
 
Article 12.B.16.h.  provides that every member “under consideration for discharge 
 
for unsuitability must have a physical examination performed by a Public Health Service 
or Armed Forces medical officer.  If one is not available locally, a contract physician may 
perform  the  exam.”    In  addition,  “when  psychiatric  considerations  are  involved,  the 
medical officer should be a psychiatrist, if available.  His or her report will include [a 
statement about whether the member has a physical disability] and a statement whether 
the  individual  was  and  is  mentally  capable    both  to  distinguish  right  from  wrong  and 
adhere  to  the  right    and  has  the  mental  capacity  to  understand  the  action  being  
contemplated in his or her case.” 
 
 
Article 1.E. 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. 
 
 
reasons for separation which might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

The SPD Handbook includes the following combinations of codes and narrative 

 
 
Under Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual, a member’s commanding officer 
has authority to decide which of the permissible RE codes list in the SPD Handbook the 
member is assigned. 
 

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 section 1552 

1. 

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

SPD 
Code 
JFX 

Narrative Reason 
for Separation 
Personality 
Disorder 

 

RE Code 
RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.16 

JFV 

Condition, Not a 
Disability 

RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

12.B.12 

 
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.) 

 
2. 

 
The applicant has not submitted any evidence to suggest that he is suitable 
for military service or that his CO erred in determining that he is not suitable for further 
military  service.    The  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  the 
applicant  was  unable  to  adapt  to  military  life  and  that  his  mental  state  made  him 
unsuitable  for  military  service.    Members  diagnosed  with  either  a  recurring  depressed 
mood  (adjustment  disorder)  or  with  a  schizotypal  personality  disorder  may  be 
administratively discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.  Personnel Manual, 
Article 12.B.16.; Medical Manual, Chapter 5.B.; SPD Handbook.  Therefore, the Board 
concludes that the Coast Guard committed no error is assigning the applicant an RE-4 
reenlistment code. 
 
 
The  Board  agrees  with  the  Chief  Counsel  that  the  doctor’s  failure  to 
certify that the applicant was “mentally responsible” and able “to distinguish right from 
wrong and to adhere to the right” and that he had “the mental capacity to understand the 
action  being  contemplated,”  as  required  under  Article  12.B.16.h.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, was harmless.  There is no evidence in the record that the applicant was mentally 
incompetent, and a psychologist’s report dated                , indicates that he was mentally 
competent. 
 

3. 

4. 

The  applicant  was  evaluated  twice  by  clinical  psychologists  who  both 
diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder.  After he requested to be discharged, he was 
sent to a doctor who was not a psychiatrist but who, on the basis of a single consultation 
and  review  of  the  psychologists’  notes,  diagnosed  him  with  schizotypal  personality 
disorder.  Nevertheless, on the basis of the doctor’s diagnosis, the applicant was assigned 
the JFX separation code and “Personality Disorder” as the reason for his discharge on his 
DD 214. 
 
5. 

In  the  Board’s  experience,  members  assigned  the  separation  code  JFX 
usually have been diagnosed by one or more psychiatrists with a personality disorder or a 
chronic adjustment disorder that repeatedly leads to inappropriate behavior or misconduct 
which  fully  supports  their  diagnoses.2    There  is  no  evidence  of  misconduct  or 
inappropriate  behavior  in  the  applicant’s  record.    Furthermore,  members  correctly 
assigned the separation code JFX often are given “Unsuitability” as a narrative reason for 
                                                 
2    See,  e.g.,  BCMR  Docket  No.  2000-142  (member  who  made  “suicidal  gesture”  by  warning  guard  at 
historic  tower  that  he  would  use  a  dog  collar  and  leash  to  hang  himself  off  the  top  of  the  tower  was 
diagnosed with a personality disorder and discharged with a JFX separation code and narrative reason for 
separation  of  “Personality  Disorder”);  BCMR  Docket  No.  1999-037  (member  frequently  exhibiting 
inappropriate sexual behavior over            period was twice diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with 
disturbance of conduct” and  discharged  with JFX  separation code and narrative reason for separation of 
“Unsuitability”); BCMR Docket No. 1998-099 (member                arrested for indecent exposure was diag-
nosed with narcissistic personality disorder and discharged with a GFX separation code (“involuntary dis-
charge  approved  by  recommendation  of  a  board  when  a  personality  disorder  exists,  not  amounting  to  a 
disability, which potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty”) and a narrative reason 
for  separation  of  “Unsuitability”;  BCMR  Docket  No.  1997-097  (member  suffering  severe  chronic 
depression was diagnosed with passive-aggressive personality disorder and discharged with JFX separation 
code and narrative reason for separation of “Unsuitability”). 
 

separation  even  though  the  SPD  Handbook  permits  only  the  use  of  “Personality 
Disorder” with the separation code JFX.3  
 

There  are  a  limited  number  of  separation  codes  available  to  the  Coast 
Guard; they cannot be tailor-made to reflect exactly the circumstances of each member’s 
discharge.  Therefore, members sometimes receive separation codes and narrative reasons 
for  separation  that  do  not  perfectly  reflect  the  causes  of  their  discharge.    Nonetheless, 
because civilian employers often demand to see former servicemembers’ DD 214s prior 
to hiring them, it is extremely important for DD 214s to be fair and not to unduly tarnish 
servicemembers’ records without just cause and substantial evidence. 

The record indicates that the first clinical psychologist, who was the only 
medical  authority  who  had  any  significant  opportunity  to  examine  and  diagnose  the 
applicant,  considered  the  possibility  that  the  applicant  might  have  a  schizotypal 
personality disorder but instead diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder.  The doctor 
who  made  the  diagnosis  of  schizotypal  personality  disorder  after  his  command  had 
decided  to  discharge  him  was  not  a  psychiatrist,  saw  the  applicant  only  once,  and 
therefore  presumably  based  his  diagnosis  on  the  psychologist’s  notes,  which  the 
psychologist himself had deemed insufficient to support the diagnosis.  Moreover, there is 
no evidence in the record that either of the psychologists who examined the applicant or 
the doctor made a finding that he had experienced at least five of the nine symptoms of 
schizotypal disorder, as required for a proper diagnosis under the American Psychiatric 
Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  

In light of the findings 4, 5, 6, and 7, above, the Board finds that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  injustice  that  “shocks  the  sense  of  justice”  when  it  assigned  the 
applicant the JFX code and “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation 
shown  on  his  DD  214.    The  Coast  Guard  is  certainly  entitled  to  discharge  a  member 
because  he  cannot  adapt  to  military  life  or  because  he  has  a  properly  diagnosed 
personality disorder.  However, it is not fair for the Coast Guard to saddle a veteran with 
the JFX code and “Personality Disorder” as a narrative reason for separation based on 
such an uncertain diagnosis by a doctor who is not a psychiatrist with no evidence that 
the applicant’s psychiatric condition, whatever it is, has caused him to commit any mis-
conduct or inappropriate behavior.  CGPC’s attempt to buttress the thin medical evidence 
in this record by having a psychiatrist review the applicant’s medical record and confirm 
the  doctor’s  diagnosis  after  the  applicant  had  been  discharged  has  not  convinced  the 
Board  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  choice  of  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  for 
separation was accurate or fair. 

6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

The Board finds that, given the applicant’s diagnosed adjustment disorder, 
inability  to  adapt  to  military  life,  and  the  provisions  of  the  SPD  Handbook,  the  Coast 
Guard  should  have  assigned  him  the  JFV  separation  code  for  having  a  condition  that 
                                                 
3  Id.; see also BCMR Docket No. 2001-020.  Although the SPD Handbook was revised in 1994 to 
remove “Unsuitability” as a proper narrative reason for separation, it apparently continues to be 
used by some commands in lieu of “Personality Disorder.” 
 

precludes military service but does not amount to a physical disability.  In the alternative, 
the Coast Guard could have ignored the SPD Handbook, as it has done in the past, and 
assigned the applicant “Unsuitability” as a narrative reason for separation along with the 
JFX separation code.   

 In  light  of  the  slim  basis  in  the  record  for  the  applicant’s  diagnosis  of 
schizotypal personality disorder, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice 
to change the applicant’s separation code to JFV, his narrative reason for separation to 
“Condition,  Not  a  Disability,”  and  the  separation  authority  shown  on  his  DD  214  to 
Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual.  However, as stated in finding 2, above, he has 
not proved that the RE-4 code on his DD 214 is in error or unjust. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request to have his RE code upgraded should 

be denied, but the alternative relief described in finding 10 should be granted.  

 
10. 

 
11. 

  

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

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

granted as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
Block 25 on his DD 214 shall be corrected to show that he was discharged under 

the authority of Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A). 

 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code JFV. 
 
Block 28 shall be corrected to show “CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY” as the 

narrative reason for separation. 

 
The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD 214 with these corrections 

made in the original (not by hand and not by issuing a DD 215). 

 
No other relief is granted. 
 
 
   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

_______________________________ 
George J. Jordan 

_______________________________ 
John A. Kern 

 

_______________________________ 
David M. Wiegand