DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2001-114 
 
XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX X. 
XXX XX XXXX, XXX 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on July 25, 2001, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  20,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

 
 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by changing the character of 
the  discharge  she  received  on  May  15,  20xx  from  “honorable  discharge  by  reason  of 
misconduct  due  to  fraudulent  enlistment”  to  “honorable  discharge  by  reason  of 
physical disability.”  She stated that such a change would result in her continued receipt 
of  the  drug  xxxxxx,  which  provides  her  temporary  and  partial  relief  from  painful 
muscle spasms. 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant stated that in September 19xx, she completed recruit processing at 
a  Military  Entrance  Processing  Station  (MEPS).    The  applicant  alleged  that  while 
undergoing  her  initial  physical  examination  during  MEPS,  she  disclosed  all  medical 
ailments “honestly and to the best of her knowledge,” including seasonal allergies and 

 
 

skin  rashes.    Based  on  her  MEPS  evaluation,  the  applicant  asserted,  military  doctors 
found her to be in good health “prior to the first time she saw an acupuncturist.” 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  March  of  19xx,  she  experienced  mild  neck 
discomfort and sought the assistance of an acupuncturist.  The applicant stated that as a 
result  of  performing  neck  stretching  and  strengthening  exercises  suggested  by  the 
examining acupuncturist, she gained relief from her neck discomfort.   

 
The applicant alleged that in September 19xx, she again sought the assistance of 
an acupuncturist while she was stationed on a cutter.  However, on this occasion, the 
applicant stated, she sought an acupuncturist through Coast Guard TriCare, but later 
discovered that TriCare benefits did not include acupuncture services.  The applicant 
stated that she independently obtained the services of an acupuncturist but gained no 
relief from the assistance.   

 
The applicant alleged that approximately one year after she enlisted, she noticed 
that  she  was  “having  trouble  controlling  the  movement  of  her  head  and  neck.”    The 
applicant  stated  that  she  was  evaluated  in  January  20xx,  by  Dr.  R  of  the  U.S.  Public 
Health  Service,  who  determined  that  she  had  torticollis1  and  recommended  that  she 
follow  a  stretching  regimen.    She  stated  that  at  the  time  she  was  seen  by  Dr.  R,  her 
condition did not interfere with her duties.   

 
The applicant alleged that after she transferred to another cutter, she experienced 
pain that hindered her from completing assigned duties, which in turn resulted in her 
being “xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx.”  The applicant stated that she was again evaluated by 
Dr. R, and thereafter referred to a neurologist, Dr. S, because xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx.  
Dr.  S  evaluated  the  applicant  on  January  11,  20xx,  and  determined  that  she  suffered 
from cervical dystonia2 and recommended that she receive xxxxxx injections.   

 
The  applicant  averred  that  she  developed  cervical  dystonia  while  serving  on 
active duty in the Coast Guard, and that as a result of the disorder, she was forced to 
seek separation from the Coast Guard.  The applicant asserted that the disorder causes 
the  muscles  in  her  neck  to  contract  involuntarily,  “prevent[ing]  her  from  holding  her 
head upright or turning [her head] to the left or right.”  The applicant contended that 
with  xxxxxx  injections,  she  obtains  temporary  and  partial  relief  from  “the  painful 
muscle contractions and involuntary movements” of her condition.  

 
The applicant alleged that in preparation for an initial medical board (IMB), the 
Coast  Guard  completed  a  follow-up  evaluation  of  the  applicant  on  February  1,  20xx.  
                                                 
1 Torticollis is a “contracted state of the cervical muscles, producing twisting of the neck and an unnatural 
position of the head.”  Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1853 (29th ed. 2000). 
2  Cervical  dystonia  is  distortion  or  impairment  of  voluntary  movement  pertaining  to  the  neck,  due  to 
disordered tension of muscle.  Id. at 329, 554, 559 and 1849.  

That  evaluation,  contended  the  applicant,  was  identical  to  her  MEPS  physical 
examination in 19xx but yielded, in part, a diagnosis of cervical dystonia.  The applicant 
stated  that  the  evaluating  physicians  indicated  “processing  by  reason  of  physical 
disability” in their report, and also completed a narrative summary for the IMB.  The 
applicant stated further that on March 2, 20xx, she received the convening order evaluee 
copy of her medical board report, and shortly thereafter, she submitted a statement in 
response.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  foregoing  collection  of  documents,  which  were 
awaiting  review  by  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (CPEB),  were  instead 
forwarded to the Commander of Enlisted Personnel Management (EPM) for purposes 
of  considering  a  discharge  due  to  fraudulent  enlistment.    The  applicant  asserted  that 
because the CPEB never convened to hear her case, she was denied the opportunity to 
be considered for separation by reason of physical disability.   

 
 
The applicant alleged that the character of her discharge without sufficient proof 
or  the  benefit  of  a  medical  board  is  unjust  for  numerous  reasons.    First,  alleged  the 
applicant, the Coast Guard’s claim that her enlistment was fraudulent due to failure to 
disclose an acupuncture visit during the interim period between her MEPS examination 
and her entry on active duty is unsubstantiated.  Second, the applicant alleged that she 
possessed no knowledge of her condition prior to enlistment.  Third, she alleged that 
she experienced no symptoms of her condition until she was serving aboard her first 
cutter  on  active  duty.    Fourth,  she  alleged,  the  medical  examination  board  (MEB) 
summary, written by Dr. S on January 11, 20xx, was not taken into consideration by the 
Coast Guard in reaching its decision that she fraudulently enlisted.   
 

The applicant argued that Dr. S’s letter dated June 6, 20xx, which states that the 
applicant’s condition “began after she entered the Coast Guard,” further contradicts the 
Coast Guard’s pronouncement of a fraudulent enlistment.  She asserted that the Coast 
Guard has failed to demonstrate an intent to deceive on the applicant’s part, as required 
by  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  establish  a  fraudulent  enlistment.    Such 
being the case, the applicant asserted, the Board should find that she is entitled to have 
the  character  of  her  discharge  changed  to  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  physical 
disability.   
 

 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On  December  14,  19xx,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  regular  component  of  the 
Coast Guard under the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP) for not less than four 
years.    Prior  to  enrolling  in  DEP,  during  recruit  processing  at  MEPS,  the  applicant 
indicated  no  problems  with  her  neck  or  neck  muscles  on  pre-enlistment  physical 
examination reports. 

experienced in her neck.   

 
On April 5, 19xx, the applicant was honorably discharged from DEP and enlisted 
in  the  regular  component  of  the  Coast  Guard  on  active  duty.    Two  days  later,  she 
executed  forms  SF-600,  stating  that  she  had  no  change  in  her  health  since  MEPS  in 
September 19xx, and SF-93, denying that she had “consulted or been treated by clinics, 
physicians, healers or other practitioners within the past 5 years for other than minor 
illnesses.” 

 
On  May  29,  19xx,  the  applicant  successfully  completed  eight  weeks  of  Coast 
Guard boot camp training, and thereafter attended “A” school to become a petty officer.  
She was transferred to her first cutter in September 19xx. 

 
In  March  19xx,  the  applicant  visited  an  acupuncturist  for  discomfort  she 

 
On  June  15,  20xx,  Dr.  R  evaluated  the  applicant,  who  complained  of  muscle 
tension in her neck and being unable to keep her neck in one position.  According to the 
applicant’s  June  15th    health  record  entry,  she  reported  that  she  was  experiencing  no 
neck pain.  Dr. R requested a radiological consult for cervical and neck x-rays for the 
applicant’s “neck pain and difficulty in moving her neck to the [left and right].”   

 
On June 22, 20xx, Dr. R met with the applicant regarding her lab results, assessed 
her  with  “suspected  torticollis”  and  referred  her  to  physical  therapy  for  a  plan  of 
treatment.    Over  the  course  of  the  next  two  weeks,  the  applicant  continued  physical 
therapy treatment.   

 
On  June  29,  20xx,  the  applicant  was  again  evaluated  by  Dr.  R,  who 
recommended an “ortho consult.”  According to the June 29th health record entry, the 
applicant  reported  that  her  condition  was  “very  slightly  better.”    Her  cutter  was 
deployed on July 5, 20xx, and she was advised to continue physical therapy at the end 
of her deployment.  

 
On  August  7,  20xx, the  applicant  was  again  evaluated  for  problems  associated 
with her neck.  Specifically, she complained that “her neck had a tendency to turn to the 
left.”  She was assessed with chronic torticollis and referred to a civilian facility to have 
an “ortho/spine consult.”  That consult was performed by Dr. Z on August 28, 20xx, 
and  produced  a  diagnosis  of  “chronic  torticollis  on  the  right.”    Dr.  Z  ordered  the 
applicant to begin a stretching program and noted his intent to consult with a different 
physician  about  “xxxx  xxxx”  for  the  treatment  of  “the  sternocleidomastoid  on  the 
[applicant’s] right.”    

 
In October 20xx, the applicant was transferred to another cutter.  On December 
12,  20xx,  Dr.  R  again  followed  up  with  the  applicant,  who  complained  of  “tight 

soreness”  and  not  being  able  to  “function”  or  “relax”  due  to  her  condition.    She 
reported that her neck problems had worsened during the ten days prior to the instant 
visit.  The applicant continued to be diagnosed with chronic torticollis and was advised 
to continue physical therapy and follow-up visits.  She continued to follow the plan of 
treatment.   

 
The applicant’s cutter was scheduled to depart overseas on January 13, 20xx.  On 
January 8, 20xx, she was examined for “persistent neck pain, tension and discomfort” at 
a  chiropractor  clinic.    During  this  evaluation,  Dr.  C  concluded,  in  part,  that  the 
applicant was “not fit to go away…[and] need[ed an] MRI neuro[logy] consult.”  On 
January  9,  20xx,  Dr.  R  followed  up  with  the  applicant  on  her  chiropractic  visit  and 
found that “at present [it] may not [be] possible to go underway.”  He recommended a 
neurology consult and told her to return in one to two weeks.   

 
On January 11, 20xx, the applicant was evaluated by a neurologist, Dr. S, who 
reported  that  she  had  a  prior  injury  of  whiplash  and  diagnosed  her  with  cervical 
dystonia.    Dr.  S  concluded  that  the  applicant  was  not  fit  for  deployment  to  sea  and 
proscribed the lifting of heavy objects.  The applicant’s condition was further noted to 
require MEB or PEB processing.  Dr. S documented her findings in an MEB summary, 
listing  an  impression  of  cervical  dystonia.    Dr.  S  recommended,  in  part,  that  the 
applicant be referred to a medical  board and that she receive xxxxxx injections every 
three months.   

 
On January 19, 20xx, the applicant followed up with Dr. S for a xxxxxx injection.  
The  applicant’s  records  indicate  that  Dr.  S  recommended  that  she  return  in  three 
months, or two weeks, if needed.  Approximately three weeks later, the applicant was 
again assessed by Dr. S, who administered a one-time booster injection of xxxxxx. 

 
On  February  1,  20xx, the  applicant  was  evaluated  for  the  purpose  of  an  Initial 
Medical Board (IMB).  The IMB found that the primary diagnosis of “cervical dystonia 
(torticollis)…[is] correct and that the [applicant] is not fit for duty.”  The board further 
stated that the applicant had no other neck injuries except whiplash and concluded that 
“[g]iven  the  chronic  nature  of  her  pain  and  concurrent  diagnosis[,]  the  prognosis  for 
[the  applicant]  is  reserved.    Additional  treatment  recommendations  include  periodic 
follow-up with a Neurologist (xxxxxx Injection), Physical Therapy and Chiropractor.”   

 
The  applicant  continued  her  recommended  plan  of  treatment  with  physical 
therapy from February 12, 20xx to May 30, 20xx, but showed no significant changes in 
her condition.  Also during this period, she received her third injection of xxxxxx and 
was advised by Dr. S to return in three months.   

 
On  March  7,  20xx,  the  applicant  timely  acknowledged  that  she  intended  to 
submit  a  rebuttal  to  the  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  IMB.    In  rebuttal,  the 

applicant stated that she was never medically diagnosed with whiplash, but her mother 
once said that she might have whiplash after she was “rear-ended … on a bumper-car 
ride.”  The applicant conveyed that she experienced no pain or discomfort as a result of 
the  amusement  park  event.    The  applicant  further  expressed  that  she  accepted  her 
medical  condition,  was  pleased  with  her  current  level  of  treatment,  and  hoped  to  be 
medically retired. 

 
By  memorandum  dated  April  13,  20xx,  the  Commander  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) notified the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Integrated 
Support  Command  (ISC)  of  CGPC’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  IMB,  wherein  the 
applicant was reported to have known that she suffered from “limited range of motion 
[in] her neck since December 19xx….”  CGPC further indicated that a discharge due to 
fraudulent enlistment was in contemplation and that ISC should offer the applicant an 
opportunity to make a statement.   

 
In response to CGPC’s April 13, 20xx memorandum, the applicant submitted a 
statement on May 11, 20xx, stating that she “did see a chiropractor and an acupuncturist 
in early 19xx for [her] neck” but attributed the problem to “a pulled or unusually tense 
muscle…simply due to stress from joining the Coast Guard.”  The applicant went on to 
state that, after she was twice seen by an acupuncturist but experienced no relief, she 
began  to  associate  her  neck  pain  with  problems  greater  than  stress.    The  applicant 
expressed  disappointment  that  she  was  being  considered  for  a  discharge  due  to  a 
fraudulent  enlistment  and  concluded  that  “[t]he  occasional  neck  pain  that  [she] 
experienced prior to [her] enlistment was not chronic nor did it affect [her] daily life in 
any way.” 

 
On  May  15,  20xx,  the  applicant  received  a  message  from  CGPC,  via  the  ISC, 
ordering  her  honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to  fraudulent 
enlistment.  The discharge orders were effective not later than June 13, 20xx.  On June 
29, 20xx, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard for “fraudulent 
entry  into  military  service”  with  an  RE-4  reenlist  code  (not  eligible)  and  a  JDA 
separation code, which denotes an “involuntary discharge … when a member procured 
a  fraudulent  enlistment,  induction,  or  period  of  military  service  through  deliberate 
material misrepresentation, omission or concealment.” 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 6, 2002, the Chief Counsel provided the Coast Guard’s comments to 
the Board.  He attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case prepared 
by CGPC.  In concurring with CGPC’s analysis, the Chief Counsel recommended that 
the Board grant the applicant partial relief by ordering the Coast Guard to review the 

applicant’s medical condition under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) 
to determine the extent of disability and the nature of discharge. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  applicant  had  a  duty  to  disclose  treatment 
 
that  she  sought  for  health  problems  associated  with  her  neck  during  the  four-month 
interim period between her enlistment in DEP and her commencement of active duty.  
He asserted that she was fully counseled on this obligation and further contended that 
the record wholly supports the applicant’s appreciation of the requirement to disclose 
such information.  The Chief Counsel stated that in spite of the multiple opportunities 
to comply with the requirements for disclosing her medical information, the applicant 
failed to so do.   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  as  a  result  of  the  applicant’s  failure  to  disclose 
health  problems  existing  prior  to  her  enlistment,  the  Coast  Guard  was  denied  the 
opportunity to fully evaluate her eligibility for enlistment.  He argued that according to 
the applicant’s record, the Coast Guard reasonably found that the applicant intended to 
conceal  her  history  of  health  problems  and  thereby  was  justified  in  subsequent  steps 
taken to implement her discharge.   

 
The Chief Counsel contended, however, that “[t]here is insufficient evidence in 
the record to support CGPC’s determination that Applicant fraudulently enlisted.”  He 
stated  that  the  plain  language  of  the  SF-93  (Report  of  Medical  History)  medical 
questionnaire may have led the applicant to consider her neck problems to be of a non-
serious nature.3  In light of the applicant’s entire record, asserted the Chief Counsel, it is 
difficult to establish that the applicant was aware of the severity of her condition.  Such 
being  the  case,  he  stated,  it  is  appropriate  to  withdraw  the  fraudulent  enlistment 
separation. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 18, 2002, the Chairman sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 
the applicant and invited her to respond within 15 days.  The applicant was granted  a 
30-day extension and responded on April 26, 2002. 
 
 
The applicant stated that she agreed with the recommendation of “the Board to 
grant relief by ordering the Coast Guard to review [her] condition under the Physical 
Disability  Evaluation  System….”4    Notwithstanding  agreeing  with  the  recommended 
                                                 
3 Specifically, the applicant answered “no” to the question “[h]ave you ever been a patient  in any type of 
hospital or consulted  or been treated by clinics, physicians, healers or other practitioners within the past 
5 years for other than minor illnesses?” 
4 The Board interprets this to mean that she agrees with the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion to the extent 
indicated. 

 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Provisions of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 
Article 3.F.1.c of the Medical Manual states the following: 
 

 
Fitness  for  Duty.    Members  are  ordinarily  considered  fit  for  duty  unless  they 
have  a  physical  impairment  (or  impairments)  which  interferes  with  the 
performance of their duties of their grade or rating.  A determination of fitness or 
unfitness  depends  upon  the  individual’s  ability  to  reasonably  perform  those 
duties.  Members considered temporarily or permanently unfit for duty shall be 
referred to an Initial Medical Board for appropriate disposition. 

relief,  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion  warranted  a 
number of clarifications or corrections in order to portray her record accurately.  She 
pointed out that specific sections in her medical record show conflicting assessments of 
either the nature and/or duration of her neck problems.  The applicant also submitted 
letters written on her behalf by acquaintances, who indicated that they knew her well 
and were unaware of any health problem prior her entry on active duty. 
 
 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  she  candidly  answered  the  Coast  Guard’s 
medical  questionnaires.    She  contended  that  had  she  answered  affirmatively  that  she 
had “been treated by clinics, physicians, healers or other practitioners…for other than 
minor illnesses,” her answer would imply treatment for a major illness.  The applicant 
declared that such a claim would have been untrue.   
 

 
 
Provisions of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2B) 
 

 
The  PDES  Manual  governs  the  separation  of  members  due  to  a  physical 
disability.  Article 2.A.23. defines “incurrence of disability” as the moment “when the 
disease or injury is contracted or suffered as distinguished from a later date when the 
member’s physical impairment is diagnosed or the physical defect renders the member 
unfit for continued duty. … A physical disability that is due to the natural progress of 
disease  or  injury  is  incurred  when  the  disease  or  injury  causing  the  disability  is 
contracted.” 
 

According  to  Article  3.D.8.,  entitled  “Requirement  for  Initial  Medical  Board 
(IMB),  “[e]xistence  of  one  or  more  of  the  following  situations  requires  convening  an 
IMB:  … In any situation where fitness for continuation of active duty is in question.” 
 

Article  3.F.1  provides  that  “[a]  medical  board  considers  and  reports  upon  any 
evaluee  whose  case  has  been  referred  for  consideration.    It  conducts  a  thorough 

physical examination to evaluate the member’s general health.  … It shall obtain and 
examine  available  records  to  formulate  a  conclusion  regarding  the  member’s  present 
state of health and the recommendations required.” 

 
Article  3.F.2.  provides  that  “[a]  medical  board  is  not  a  forum  for  conducting  a 
formal hearing, taking other than medical evidence, or making determinations required 
of physical evaluation boards by chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 of [the PDES].  It presents a clear 
medical picture of the case in question[,] making all pertinent diagnoses/prognoses and 
giving a medical opinion as to the evaluee’s fitness for duty and recommendation for 
future action. … “ 

 
According  to  Article  4.A.1.a.,  “[t]he  CPEB  is  a  permanently  established 
administrative body convened to evaluate the following on the basis of records only:  
the fitness for duty of active duty and reserve members; …”  Furthermore, Article 4.A.3. 
provides that “[t]he CPEB evaluates the fitness for duty of all evaluees whose cases are 
referred  to  it  for  consideration  by  Commander  (CGPC–adm),  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command.” 
 
 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Disability Evaluation and Disciplinary Action,” provides the following: 
 

Article 12.B.1.e. of the Personnel Manual, entitled “Cases Involving Concurrent 

Disability  statutes  do  not  preclude  disciplinary  separation.    The  separations 
described  here  supersede  disability  separation  or  retirement.    If  Commander, 
(CGPC-amd)  is  processing  a  member  for  disability  while  simultaneously 
Commander  (CGPC-emp-1)  is  evaluating  him  or  her  for  an  involuntary 
administrative  separation  for  misconduct  or  disciplinary  proceedings  which 
could  result  in  a  punitive  discharge  or  an  unsuspended  punitive  discharge  is 
pending,  Commander,  (CGPC-adm)  suspends  the  disability  evaluation  and 
Commander (CGPC-epm-1) considers the disciplinary action.  If the action taken 
does  not 
include  punitive  or  administrative  discharge  for  misconduct, 
Commander,  (CGPC-adm)  sends  or  returns  the  case  to  Commander,  (CGPC-
adm)  for  processing.    If  the  action  includes  either  a  punitive  or  administrative 
discharge  for  misconduct,  the  medical  board  report  shall  be  filed  in  the 
terminated member’s medical personnel data record (MED PDR). ….” 

 
 
Article  12.B.18.b.2.,  entitled  “Reasons  to  Discharge  for  Misconduct,”  provides 
that  “Commander,  (CGPC)  may  direct  discharging  a  member  for  misconduct…”  for 
“procuring a fraudulent enlistment, induction, or period of active service through any 
deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which, if known at the 
time, might have resulted in rejection.  …” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  she  was  wrongly  denied  the  opportunity  to 
have “her case heard by competent Board members” of a CPEB in order to consider her 
for  separation  by  reason  of  physical  disability.    Pursuant  to  3.F.1.c.  of  the  Medical 
Manual,  the  Coast  Guard  was  required  to  determine  the  applicant’s  fitness  for  duty 
when  the  applicant’s  health  problems  associated  with  her  neck  interfered  with  her 
duties aboard her second cutter.  In assessing her continued fitness for active duty, an 
IMB  was  convened  and  the  applicant’s  general  health  was  evaluated  during  a 
comprehensive physical examination.  PDES Manual, Articles 3.D.8., 3.F.1. and 3.F.2.   A 
CPEB, however, was not required to evaluate the applicant’s fitness for duty unless her 
case was referred to the CPEB by the Commander (CGPC-adm), Coast Guard Personnel 
Command.  PDES Manual, Article 4.A.3.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard erred in forwarding her case to 
the  Commander  of  EPM  for  administrative  discharge,  while  her  case  was  awaiting 
CPEB review.  It is an established rule that the administrative discharge of an enlisted 
person  before  the  expiration  of  their  enlistment  term  is  void  if  it  “exceeds  applicable  
statutory authority, or ignores pertinent procedural regulations, or violates minimum 
concepts of basic fairness.”  Waller v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 908, 913, 461 F.2d 1273, 
1276 (1973); Giglio v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 160, 166 (1989).  However, under Article 
12.B.1.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual, 
involuntary  administrative  separations  for 
misconduct  or  disciplinary  proceedings,  which  may  result  in  punitive  discharge, 
supersede separations by reason of disability.  Therefore, the Board cannot find that the 
Coast Guard erred when it suspended the applicant’s disability evaluation, subsequent 
to  her  IMB  evaluation,  in  order  to  consider  administratively  separating  her  for 
fraudulent enlistment. 
 
 
The  applicant  asserted  that  her  discharge  for  misconduct  due  to 
fraudulent enlistment is legally and factually insufficient because the evidence fails to 
establish that she knowingly misrepresented the serious nature of her health problems.  
The record shows that, prior to her entry on active duty, she experienced one neck ache 
that was resolved through stretching exercises.  The Chief Counsel admitted that under 
the circumstances presented, it is difficult to ascertain and establish whether or not the 
applicant  knew  and 
the  severity  of  her  condition.  
Consequently,  he  agreed  that  the  character  of  the  applicant’s  discharge  should  be 

intentionally  concealed 

4. 

corrected  by  removing  the  fraudulent  enlistment  separation.    Moreover,  the  Coast 
Guard  has  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  partial  relief  by  ordering  the  Coast 
Guard  to  review  the  applicant’s  medical  condition  under  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation System in order to determine the extent of her disability and the nature of 
the applicant’s discharge.    
 
 
The PDES Manual governs the determination of when a service member 
incurs a disability.  PDES Manual, Article 2.A.23.  The Board is persuaded that the Coast 
Guard  denied  the  applicant  a  CPEB  and  discharged  her  for  misconduct  without 
sufficient evidence that she knowingly provided false information about the nature of 
her health problems.   The preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that 
neither the applicant nor her doctors had any idea of the serious nature of her illness 
until she had served on active duty for almost two years.  Therefore, the applicant has 
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred in discharging 
her for fraudulent enlistment with a JDA separation code and RE-4 reenlistment code.  
She  has  also  proven  that  she  was  denied  due  process,  in  that  she  should  have  been 
discharged under the PDES.   
 

Accordingly,  the  applicant  should  be  granted  the  relief  of  having  the 
Coast Guard convene a CPEB to determine the extent of the applicant’s disability and 
the nature of the applicant’s discharge.  In addition, her DD 214 should be corrected to 
reflect a reason for discharge that is consistent with the final determination of the PDES.   
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

5. 

6. 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXX  XXXXX,  XXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  is  granted  as 

ORDER 

Within four months of the date of this decision, the Coast Guard shall convene a 
CPEB  to  evaluate  her  case.    Thereafter,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  process  her  case  in 
accordance with the PDES Manual and applicable regulation. 

 
After such PDES processing is complete, the Coast Guard shall correct her DD 
214  to  show  a  narrative  reason  for  separation,  separation  authority,  separation  code, 
and reenlistment code that reflect the results of her PDES processing and that conform 
to the provisions of the Separation Program Designation Handbook.   

 
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sum she may be due as a result of 

 
 
follows:   
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

this correction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
Murray A. Bloom 

 

 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf