DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
  
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No. 2002-061 

  FINAL DECISION 

 
ULMER, Chair: 
 
 
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 March 13, 2002, upon the 
Board's  receipt  of  the  applicant's  complete  application  for  correction  of  her  military 
record.   
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant, a former member of the Coast Guard, asked the Board to upgrade 
her  discharge  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  to  an  honorable  discharge  by 
reason of physical disability. 
 

This final decision, dated March XX, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 7, xxxx.  She was discharged 
under  other  than  honorable  conditions  on  October  1,  xxxx  in  lieu  of  trial  by  special 
court-martial, with a KFS (voluntary discharge allowed by established directive when 
separated for conduct triable by court martial for which the member may voluntarily 
separate  in  lieu  of  going  to  trial)  separation  code  and  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment) reenlistment code.   
 
 

EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that she was discharged "for a criminal offense which was 
precipitated  by  medication  [she]  was  [placed]  on  by  [her]  acting  psychologist."    She 
stated  that  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  [DVA]  has  granted  her  a  service-
connected disability for bipolar disorder, for which she was diagnosed while on active 
duty.   
 

The applicant denied on her pre-enlistment and enlistment medical report forms 
that she had ever been treated for mental illness.  Based on her representations in this 
regard  and  a  medical  examination,  she  was  found  to  be  qualified  for  enlistment.  She 
enlisted on July 7, xxxx.   

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 2 - 

 

 
The applicant had a somewhat uneventful enlistment until on or about April 13, 
xxxx, when she reported to the health clinic complaining about feeling angry most of 
the  time.    She  stated  that  she  had  experienced  the  same  feelings  in  childhood.    The 
medical note for this visit indicated that while a freshman in high school, the applicant 
had been diagnosed with manic depression and was prescribed medication, which she 
refused to take.  The medical personnel at the health clinic referred the applicant to a 
psychiatrist, Dr. H.   
 
 
On May 17, xxxx, the applicant had an initial diagnostic interview with Dr. H to 
rule out bipolar disorder and depression. At the time, her symptoms were mood swings 
and  difficulty  controlling  anger  for  the  past  year.    Dr.  H's  report  noted  that  the 
applicant, as an 11 or 12-year-old child, had periods of increased anxiety-palpitations, 
shortness  of  breath,  and  feelings  of  dying,  for  which  she  was  not  treated.    The 
psychiatrist,  Dr.  H.  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering  from  Generalized  Anxiety 
Disorder and prescribed Paxil to treat the condition.   
 
 
A  June  15,  xxxx,  medical  note  in  the  applicant's  record  stated  that  Paxil  was 
discontinued due to side effects but the drug Wellbutin was prescribed on a trial basis.  
At this visit, the applicant was found fit for light duty, but not fit for boat/sea duty or 
driving a government vehicle. 
 
 
On July 16, xxxx, the applicant visited the health clinic for an update of her duty 
status.  The medical note indicated that Wellubtin had been discontinued and that she 
had  been  placed  on  Celexa  for  depression.    The  applicant  reported  feeling  less  anger 
and  moodiness  with  Celexa.    The  medical  note  indicated  that  the  applicant  was 
diagnosed at that time with anxiety and that she was continued on light duty with no 
driving, climbing, or sea duty.  
 
On  or  about  September  xx,  xxxx,  the  applicant  was  arrested  for  using  a  stolen 
 
credit  card  to  pay  for  her  gambling  activity.    The  applicant  reported  that  she  began 
gambling  in  April  1999.  On  November  24,  xxxx,  a  civilian  medical  care  provider 
requested one on one counseling for the applicant.   
 
 
On  December  3,  xxxx,  the  applicant  became  the  subject  of  a  criminal 
investigation  because  she  was  suspected  of  making  fraudulent  credit  card  purchases, 
threatening her boyfriend, and forging checks.  
 
 
On December 17, xxxx, the Commanding Officer of a Naval hospital determined 
that  the  applicant  met  the  diagnostic  criteria  for pathological gambling.  The hospital 
recommended that the applicant receive outpatient treatment for her gambling.   
 

January 5, xxxx, the applicant was charged with two specifications of attempted 
larceny and 56 specifications of larceny.  The charges were referred to a special court-

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 3 - 

 

martial.      Forgery  charges  were  not  pursued  because  the  handwriting  analysis 
comparing the applicant's signature to that on the checks was inconclusive.   

 
In  a  February  1,  xxxx,  medical  evaluation  report,  Dr.  H,  the  applicant's 
psychiatrist,  wrote  that  in  April/May  xxxx,  the  applicant  reported  a  history  of  mood 
swings  over  many  years,  but  a  careful  evaluation  at that time did not reveal that she 
suffered from a hypomanic or manic episode.  He stated that her history at that time 
appeared to be more compatible with generalized anxiety disorder rather than bipolar 
disorder, despite the fact that her mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.   

 
Dr.  H  stated  that  medication  trials  were  initiated  with  paroxetine  (Paxil), 
bupropion (Wellbutin), and finally citalopram (Celexa).  He further stated the following: 

 
There was no response with the first 2 medications, but within 4 weeks of 
starting  the  citalopram  she  began  to  have  marked  hyperactivity, 
compulsive  gambling,  insomnia  without  feeling  tired,  spending  sprees, 
inflated self-esteem, talking fast, and excessive involvement in pleasurable 
activities  --  gambling  and  indiscrete  sexual  activity.    This  manic  episode 
persisted  until  she  was  arrested  for  illegal  activity  of  multiple  thefts  to 
support her gambling losses.   

Following her arrest, she has continued on the medication and continues 
to note hyperactivity and compulsive behaviors.  She has not engaged in 
any illegal activities and has been working hard to find an explanation for 
her behavior.   
 
Dr.  H  described  the  applicant's  mental  status  as  anxious  and  her  affect  as 
appropriate, although she working hard to control it.  He stated that the applicant was 
nervous and "very depressed and confused about why she could have engaged in such 
antisocial [stealing] behavior."  He stated that the applicant had no homicidal or suicidal 
ideation,  delusions  or  hallucinations.    He  found  that  the  applicant's  insight  and 
judgment were good and her impulse control was adequate.  Dr. H's report also stated 
the following: 

 
It  appears,  in  retrospect,  that  this  individual  has  bipolar  disorder.    The 
medical literature documents the following adverse psychiatric disorders 
resulting  form  Citalopram  (Celexa)  "Frequent:    impaired  concentration, 
amnesia,  apathy,  depression,  increased  appetite,  aggravated  depression, 
suicide attempt, and confusion.  Infrequent:  increased libido, aggressive 
reaction,  paranoia,  drug  dependence,  depersonalization,  hallucinations, 
euphoria,  psychotic  depression,  delusions,  emotional  liability,  panic 
reaction,  and  psychosis"--  This  section  was  quoted  directly  from  the 
package insert-- 

 

 

 
Inquiry into the Applicant's Mental Status  
 
 
On February 10, xxxx, pursuant to R.C.M. 706 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, 
the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  requested  an  inquiry  into  the  applicant's 
mental  status  to  determine  whether  she  had  a  severe  mental  disease  or  defect  at  the 
time of the alleged criminal conduct.    
 

On May 8, xxxx, the mental inquiry board composed of Dr. B issued its report, 

which described the history of the applicant's illness as follows: 
 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 4 - 

 

IN  SUMMARY  THIS 
INDIVIDUAL  HAD  A  MANIC  EPISODE 
PRECIPITATED  BY  CITALOPRAM  WHICH  WOULD  EXPLAIN  MOST 
OF HER ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR FROM APPROXIMATELY 1 AUGUST TO 
30 OCTOBER xxxx.   

In  May  xxxx  the  defendant  presented  to  her  medical  department 
complaining  of  a  one-year  history  of  increased  anxiety,  rapid  mood 
swings,  irritability,  and  anger.    She  was  referred  to  the  Mental  Health 
Department at xxxxx xxxx Medical Center (xxxxx).  [Dr. H] (psychiatrist) 
diagnosed her with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, prescribed paroxetine 
(Paxil),  20  mg  orally  once  per  day  and  recommended  that  she  begin 
individual  counseling  through  the  Coast  Guard  Employee  Assistance 
Program  (EAP).    After  three  weeks  of  compliantly  taking  paroxetine 
(Paxil)  the  [applicant's]  mood  swings  significantly  decreased  and  her 
anger  dissipated.    However,  the  defendant  experienced  side  effects  of 
decreased  sexual  drive,  impaired  sexual  functioning,  and  anorgasmia.  
The command arranged a follow up appointment with [Dr. H] to address 
side  effect  issues.    [Dr.  H]  reevaluated  [the  applicant]  and  decided  to 
discontinue  [Paxil].    She  was then prescribed bupropion (Wellbutrin SR) 
which she took compliantly for four weeks.  However, this antidepressant 
medication  worsened  her  mood  swings,  irritability,  and  anger.    [The 
applicant] stated "It made me angry.  It was like I wasn't taking anything."  
In late June xxxx [Dr. H] discontinued bupropion (Wellbutrin SR) because 
of  ineffectiveness.    She  was  then  prescribed  citalopram  (Celexa),  20  mg 
orally once per day.  She began compliantly taking the new medication in 
early to mid July xxxx.  Within a two to three week period she noticed that 
her mood had elevated beyond normal.  She stated, "I always felt anxious 
with  nervous  energy.    I  would  always  be  excited.    It  felt  like  the 
medication was some sort of upper."  Between August xxxx and February 
xxxx, [the applicant] experienced an abnormally and persistently elevated 
and  irritable  mood  with  associated  symptoms  of  grandiosity,  decreased 
need  for  sleep,  pressured  speech,  racing  thoughts,  and  excessive 
involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential for painful 
consequences (i.e. stealing, spending and gambling).  She stated, "I spent 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 5 - 

 

$500.00  at  a  time  on  clothing  that  wouldn't  even  fit  me."    Her  manic 
episode  was  of  such  severity  that  it  caused  significant  interpersonal, 
occupational,  and  legal  impairment. 
  She  experienced  some  mild 
depressive symptoms with intermittent suicidal ideation in the context of 
being arrested and restricted to base in mid September.  The intensity of 
her  depressive  symptoms  was  minimal  compared  to  her  ongoing  manic 
symptoms.    She  stated,  "after  I  got  arrested  I  felt  down,  but  I continued 
taking  Celexa  and  the  depression  quickly  went  away."    [The  applicant] 
continued  to  experience  excessive  talking,  decreased  need  for  sleep, 
grandiosity and impulsiveness.  She stated, "I still felt the desire to gamble 
despite  being  on  restriction.    My  stealing  behavior  continued  up  until 
February  xxxx  when  I  was  taken  off  Celexa."    In  February  xxxx,    [the 
applicant was prescribed olanzapine (Zyprexa), 10 mg orally once per day 
for  the  purpose  of  mood  stabilization. 
  She  took  the  medication 
compliantly  for  approximately  three  weeks,  but  had  to  stop  because  of 
akathisia.    In  early  March  xxxx,  Dr.  H  discontinued  olanzapine  .  .  .  and 
reinstituted [Paxil] . . . Since that time the applicant's expansive mood has 
decreased  and  stabilized  .  .  .  She  currently  attends  weekly  group 
psychotherapy for bipolar patients.  She also continues in treatment with 
[Dr. H] for psychotropic medication management.   
 
  In  April  xxxx  [the  applicant]  went  gambling  for  the  first  time  with  a 
group  of  friends.    Her  frequency  of  gambling  dramatically  increased  to 
every  day.    She  gambled  during  her  mid  day  lunch  break  and  she  left 
work early to gamble before she returned home.  [The applicant] gambled 
by herself and she kept her gambling activity hidden from her boyfriend 
and command . . .  [A]s the month of August progressed, [the applicant's] 
gambling  began  taking  up  excessive  time  and  money.    .  .  .  She  .  .  .  lost 
enormous  amounts  of  money  and  couldn't  stop  without  gambling  away 
all of her winnings.  This quickly led to illegal activities to secure financing 
for  her  gambling  addiction.    [The  applicant's]  gambling  stopped  on 
September xx, xxx when she was arrested.   

 
 
Dr. B, the mental inquiry board psychiatrist, diagnosed the applicant as suffering 
from Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode, 296.0 (Axis I); problems related to the 
legal  system/crime,  problems  with  primary  support  group,  and  economic  problems 
(Axis IV); and 50 on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (Axis V).   He stated 
that  the  applicant's  historical  data,  her  mental  status  examination,  and  the 
accompanying  collateral  information  supported  the  argument  that  the  applicant 
suffered  a  manic  episode,  which  was  of  such  severity  that  it  caused  significant 
interpersonal, occupational, and legal impairment.  He further stated as follows: 
 

timeline  of 

The 
in  conjunction  with 
citalopram's  potential  to  induce  manic-like  behavior  clearly  shows  that 

treatment  with  citalopram 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 6 - 

 

citalopram  was  probably  the  inciting  etiologic  factor  responsible  for  her 
abnormal behavior.  Technically, if one were to apply an exact timeline in 
conjunction  with  strict  diagnostic  guidance  from  the  Diagnostic  and 
Statistical  Manual  of  Mental  Disorders  (DSM-IV),  the  applicant  would 
have  a  diagnosis  of  Substance  (citalopram)  Induced  Mood  Disorder.  
However,  additional  evidence  suggests  that  her  period  of  abnormal 
behavior was not solely substance induced.  When [the applicant] initially 
presented  in  April/May  xxxx  she  had  been  complaining  of  a  one-year 
period of mood swings and irritability.  In retrospect, it is my opinion that 
these  symptoms  were  the  harbinger  of  a  more  severe  mood  disturbance 
that  was  to  follow  .  .  .  It  is  also  my  opinion  that  [the  applicant]  is 
genetically predisposed to develop bipolar and that citalopram sparked a 
manic  episode  that  was  already  beginning  to  manifest.    It  is  also  my 
opinion that [the applicant's] probability for developing future manic and 
major  depressive  episodes  is  high  even  in  the  absence  of  substance  use, 
psychopharmacotherapy,  or  significant  environmental  stress. 
  [The 
applicant] has also been diagnosed with Pathological Gambling . . . Once 
again,  if  one  were  to  apply  an  exact  timeline  in  conjunction  with  strict 
diagnostic guidance from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders (DSM IV), the applicant would not have pathological gambling 
because  her  abnormal  behavior  occurred  during  the  course  of  a  manic 
episode.    However,  it  is  my  opinion  that  [the  applicant]  does  warrant  a 
diagnosis  of  Pathological  Gambling. 
  Despite  stabilization  of  [the 
applicant's]  mood  since  February  xxxx,  she  continues  to  have  a 
preoccupation  with  gambling  and  recurrent  thoughts  of  stealing  as  a 
means to finance gambling.  These thought processes continue to occur in 
the absence of mania.  The desire to gamble continues to excite her and at 
the  same  time  upset  her  because  she  is  quite  aware  of  the  detrimental 
consequences of that activity.   

 

The  mental  inquiry  board  concluded  that  at  the  time  of  the  applicant's  alleged 
criminal conduct, she had a severe mental disease or defect, "Bipolar I Disorder Single 
Manic  Episode."    It  further  concluded  that  the  applicant,  at  the  times  of  the  alleged 
criminal conduct, was able to appreciate the nature of her action or wrongfulness of her 
conduct despite having a severe mental disease or defect.  "However, it is my opinion 
that at the times of the alleged criminal conduct, the [applicant] possessed diminished 
mental  capacity  to  control  her  impulses.    This  state  caused  her  to  act  in  a  reckless 
manner in which she consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risks of 
her  actions."    Dr.  B  also  found  that  the  applicant  "has  sufficient  mental  capacity  to 
understand  the  nature  of  the  proceedings  against  her  and  she  is  able  to  cooperate 
intelligently in her defense." 

 
The applicant's treating psychiatrist, Dr. B, wrote a memorandum for the record 
dated May 8, xxxx.  He stated that the applicant's condition was under control and that 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 7 - 

 

she  was  participating  in  psychotherapy  and  taking  her  medication  as  prescribed.  He 
gave  the  applicant  an  excellent  prognosis,  stating,  "it  is  unlikely  that  there  will  be  a 
reoccurrence of any hyperactive behavior." 

 
 
The record contains an undated letter from the applicant's CO's supervisor to the 
Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  with  the  subject  "REQUEST 
FOR  DISCHARGE  UNDER  OTHER  THAN  HONORABLE  CONDITIONS  FOR  THE 
GOOD OF THE SERVICE."  This letter favorably endorsed a request from the applicant 
to  be  discharged  under  other  than  honorable  discharge  in  lieu  of  a  special  court-
martial.1  This endorsement further states, "Approval of [the applicant's] request for an 
other than honorable discharge is in the best interest of the Coast Guard.  This request is 
a  key  component  of  the  negotiated  resolution  of  serious  UCMJ  charges  previously 
referred  to  a  special  court-martial.    Other  elements  included  the  imposition  of  non-
judicial punishment and significant restitution.  [The applicant's] admitted misconduct 
warrants a discharge under other than honorable conditions." 
 
 
On August 10, xxxx, the applicant was found medically qualified for discharge, 
although  the  doctor  noted  that  she  had  been  diagnosed  with  bipolar  disorder.  CGPC 
approved  the  applicant's  discharge  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  on 
September 13, xxxx, and she was discharged on October 1, xxxx.    
 
 
  
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) Decision 
 
 
On  January  3,  xxxx,  the  DVA  determined  that  for  its  purposes  the  applicant's 
Coast Guard service had been honorable.  It stated that the applicant was not sane at the 
time she committed the acts that led to her discharge.  The DVA gave the applicant a 
10%  disability  rating  for  Bipolar  Disorder  effective  from  October  2,  xxxx.    The  DVA 
noted  that  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  multiple  psychiatric  conditions  between 
July  11,  xxxx  and  June  8,  xxxx.    "[T]he  final  [diagnosis]  settled  upon  bipolar  disorder 
following  an  extreme  manic  episode  set  off  by  treatment  with  Citalopram,  an 
antidepressant.      Subsequent  evidence  shows  that  once  a  correct  diagnosis  was  made 
and  the  veteran  was  treated  with  appropriate  medication,  her  condition  was  brought 
under control significantly."  The DVA stated that the most recent medical evidence in 
the applicant's military medical record indicates that the applicant's condition was well 
under  control  on  current  medications,  and  therefore,  warranted  a  10%  evaluation  for 
mild  symptoms.    On  August  17,  xxxx,  the  DVA  increased  the  applicant's  disability 
rating for bipolar disorder to 30% effective October 2, xxxx.  
 
                                                 
1  The applicant's letter requesting a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 
not in the military record. 
 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 8 - 

 

Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On September 27, xxxx, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board deny relief to the applicant.  He stated that the applicant failed to prove that 
the Coast Guard committed either an error or an injustice by separating her under other 
than honorable conditions.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  requested  discharge  under  Article 
12.B.21 of the Personnel Manual, which provides that an enlisted member, who has an 
assigned lawyer, may request a discharge under other than honorable conditions for the 
good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial if punishment for alleged misconduct 
could result in a punitive discharge or at any time after court-martial changes have been 
preferred against the member.    
 

The  Chief  Counsel  relied  on  the  memorandum  from  the  Chief  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion,  to 
support his position that the applicant's discharge was appropriate.  CGPC stated the 
following: 

 
Per Article 12-B-1.e. of the [Personnel Manual] "Disability statutes do not 
preclude  disciplinary  separation." 
  The  separations  described  here 
supersede  disability  separation  or  retirement.    If  [CGPC]  is  processing  a 
member  for  disability  while  simultaneously  [another  commander]  is 
evaluating  him  or  her  for  an  involuntary  administrative  separation  for 
misconduct  or  disciplinary  proceeding  which  could  result  in  a  punitive 
discharge  or  an  unsuspended  punitive  discharge  is  pending,  [CGPC] 
suspends  the  disability  evaluation  and  [the  other  commander]  considers 
the  disciplinary  action.    If  the  action  taken  does  include  punitive  or 
administrative  discharge  for  misconduct,  the  medical  board  report  shall 
be filed in the terminated member's medical personnel data record.   

  
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant has the burden of proof but offered 
no evidence to rebut the findings by a board of medical officers that she was "able at the 
time  [of  her  alleged]  criminal  conduct  .  .  .  to  appreciate  the  nature  and  quality  of 
wrongfulness of her conduct" and that she had a severe mental illness at the time of the 
alleged misconduct.  He stated that absent strong evidence to the contrary, government 
officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992).  He stated that based on his 
review  of  the  record,  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  commit  any  error  or  prejudice  and 
properly followed its own regulations when in discharged the applicant with a general 
discharge under other than honorable conditions.   
 
 Applicant’s Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 

 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 9 - 

 

 
On January 27, 2003, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of the 
Coast  Guard.    She  stated  that  from  xxxx  until  xxxx  she  had  no  problems  with  mood 
swings  and  began  to  experience  them  after  her  transfer  to  a  new  duty  station.    She 
stated  when  she  began  to  feel  moody  and  unmotivated  she  spoke  to  a  BM1  who 
referred  her  to  a  nurse  practitioner  (NP).    She  told  the  NP  that  she  had  experienced 
similar  feelings  as  a  high  school  freshman  and  the  school  nurse  referred  her  to  a 
counseling center.  According to the applicant, the nurse at this center did not believe 
the applicant was manic-depressive and suggested that the applicant take medication to 
help her sleep.  The applicant stated that she never saw this nurse again, and she denied 
that she told the Coast Guard NP that she had been diagnosed with manic depression.   
 
 
The applicant stated that she believed she suffered from panic attacks when she 
was a child, but she was never diagnosed with them.  "I never knew what a panic attack 
was until I was researching mood conditions [recently] and then I figured out they are 
caused by high volumes of stress or anxiety and that [must have been] it." 
 
 
The applicant stated that after she began taking Paxil her moods lightened a bit 
and there was a definite increase in her energy level, which she explained to Dr. H. who 
eventually placed her on Celexa.  She stated that after two weeks of being on this drug, 
she had diminished mental capacity, was running around at all hours of the night, and 
was  doing  things  that  were  out  of  character  for  her.    She  stated  that  although  Dr.  H 
seemed pleased that her moods had improved but also seemed concerned about them.  
The applicant further stated the following: 
 

Well,  I  had  [gone] 
into  a  "manic"  phase  and  began  gambling 
uncontrollably,  stealing,  lying,  not  showing  up  for  work  or  making  up 
excuses.  This lasted a few months until finally I was thrown in jail.  After 
that Dr. H realized he had mis-diagnosed me and I was actually suffering 
from Bi-Polar and the medication Celexa (which was known for this) had 
put  me  into  a  full  blown  manic  phase  and  [Dr.  H]  quickly  changed  my 
medicine  from  an  anti-depressant  to  a  mood  stabilizer  .  .  .  The  Coast 
Guard then restricted me to the base for approximately 7 months before I 
went  to  trial.  .  .  .    I  went  to  a  Special  Court  Martial  that  lasted  8  days 
before the Coast Guard judge decided to throw out the case (for medical 
reasons).   Then the Coast Guard asked my lawyer if I wanted to agree to a 
Captain's Mast [non-judicial punishment].  I said yes.  I didn't want to go 
on  because  to  my  understanding  it  would  have  been  a  very  drawn  out 
process.    I  was  mentally  and  physically  exhausted  and  I  wanted  to  go 
home.  I had already been confined to base for so long and even though 
my lawyer wanted to proceed I decided the easiest thing to do at that time 
was  to  accept  whatever  the  Coast  Guard  wanted  and  be  discharged.  In 
hindsight I would have fought them.          

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 10 - 

 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

 
 
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 
applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2.  The applicant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  injustice  when  it  discharged  her  under  other  than  honorable 
conditions.  In this regard, the Board need only look to the psychiatric report inquiring 
into  the  mental  capacity  of  the  applicant  pursuant  to  R.C.M.  706  of  the  Manual  for 
Courts-Martial.  This rule states that if there is reason to believe that the accused lacked 
mental responsibility for any offense charged or lacks capacity to stand trial, that fact 
and the basis of the belief or observation shall be transmitted to the official authorized 
to  order  an  inquiry  into  the  mental  condition  of  the  accused.    Such  an  inquiry  was 
ordered in the applicant's case.  The psychiatrist conducting the mental inquiry found 
that at the time the applicant committed the alleged offenses, she was suffering from a 
severe  mental  illness,  Bipolar  Disorder.  Although  he  found  that  at  the  time  of  the 
alleged  misconduct  the  applicant  was  able  to  appreciate  the  nature  of  her  actions  or 
wrongfulness of her conduct despite the severe mental disease, he also found that she 
"possessed diminished mental capacity to control her impulses.  This state caused her to 
act  in  a  reckless  manner  in  which  she  consciously  disregarded  the  substantial  and 
unjustifiable risks of her actions."  
 
 
3.  The applicant suffered from a severe mental illness with diminished capacity 
to  control  her  impulses  at  the  time  she  committed  the  alleged  offenses.    With  such  a 
diagnosis  by  competent  medical  authority,  it  was  an  injustice  for  the  Coast  Guard  to 
discharge the applicant under other than honorable conditions.  This is particularly so 
in  light  of  the  fact  that  the  medication  prescribed  for  her  by  a  Coast  Guard  doctor 
contributed to her manic state resulting in the misconduct.  Both the applicant's treating 
physician and the physician inquiring into the applicant's mental responsibility stated 
that Celexa, which was prescribed by Dr. H, a Coast Guard doctor, triggered her manic 
episode,  which  led  to  the  misconduct.  Discharging  the  applicant  under  other  than 
honorable conditions for conduct precipitated in part by a drug prescribed by a Coast 
Guard treating physician is unfair.  
 
 
4.    Contrary  to  the  Coast  Guard's  suggestion,  a  discharge  under  other  than 
honorable conditions is not mandatory even though such a discharge is sought in lieu of 
court-martial.  Article  12.B.21.e.,  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  an  honorable  or 
general discharge may be granted if the Commander, CGPC believes a more favorable 
discharge is warranted.  Many of the documents related to the applicant's request for a 
discharge  are  not  in  the  record.    However,  Article  12.B.21.d.  requires  that  a  report  of 
medical examination and a psychiatric evaluation be included as part of the applicant's 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 11 - 

 

package requesting discharge under other than honorable conditions.  It is difficult to 
see how a discharge under other than honorable conditions could have been approved 
in light of the medical evidence in this case. Accordingly, the Board is not persuaded 
that a discharge under other than honorable conditions was mandatory or appropriate 
in this case.  For the reasons discussed above, the Board will direct that the applicant be 
given a general discharge under honorable conditions.  In reaching this conclusion, the 
Board also notes that the applicant performed her duties in a satisfactory manner and 
was  not  a  disciplinary  problem  until  she  suffered  a  manic  episode  that  led  to  the 
misconduct.   
 
 
5.  The Board is not persuaded that an honorable discharge is appropriate in this 
case because there is insufficient evidence establishing that the medication Celexa was 
the  sole  cause  for  the  applicant's  misconduct.    Absent  such  evidence,  it  is  not 
appropriate to upgrade the character of the applicant's discharge to honorable.   
 
 
6.    The  Board  having  determined  that  the  applicant's  discharge  should  be 
upgraded must also decide whether the applicant's record should be further corrected 
to show that she was discharged due to physical disability.  Members discharged due to 
physical  disability  are  normally  processed  through  the  physical  disability  evaluation 
system  (PDES).    The  Coast  Guard  argued  that  based  upon  Article  12.B.1.e.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual,  it  had  little  choice  but  to  suspend  any  disability  evaluation  of  the 
applicant  under  the  physical  disability  evaluation  system  (PDES)  in  favor  of  the 
disciplinary  action  if  such  action  would  lead  to  an  involuntary  administrative 
separation  for  misconduct  or  an  unsuspended  punitive  discharge.    The  Coast  Guard 
further  stated that since the administrative disciplinary proceedings in the applicant's 
case resulted in an administrative discharge due to misconduct, PDES processing was 
terminated.  The Coast Guard's argument is problematic because there is no evidence in 
the  record  that  the  applicant's  mental  illness  was  never  submitted  to  the  PDES  for 
evaluation.  The psychiatric evaluation was ordered as a part of the legal proceedings, 
under  Rule  706  of  the  Manual  for  Courts-Martial,  to  determine  the  applicant's  legal 
responsibility  for  her  alleged  violations  of  the  UCMJ.      Therefore,  the  Board  is  not 
persuaded that this provision prohibits the applicant's discharge by reason of physical 
disability. 
 
 
7.  However, the Board is mindful of the fact that the applicant after consultation 
with her defense lawyer requested to be discharged, rather than face the risks of trial at 
a court-martial. With a viable defense, she could have chosen court-martial and if she 
had  prevailed,  evaluation  by  the  PDES  would  probably  have  been  available  to  her.  
Both  her  treating  physician  and  mental  inquiry  board  physician  determined  that  she 
was able to participate intelligently in her defense.  Therefore, the Board finds that by 
requesting  a  discharge  she  voluntarily  relinquished  any  expectation  she  had  to  be 
processed through the PDES.  In addition, there is no evidence in the record stating that 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 12 - 

 

the applicant was unfit2 to perform the duties of her rate at the time of her discharge. 
Although  the  medical  inquiry  board  found  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  a  severe 
mental illness with diminished mental capacity to control her impulses due to a drug 
induced  manic  episode  at  the  time  she  committed  the  offenses,  it  also  found that she 
"had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against her 
and  [was]  able  to  cooperate  intelligently  in  her  defense."        In  addition  her  treating 
psychiatrist stated in a May 8, xxxx letter that the applicant's "prognosis is excellent and 
it is highly unlikely that there will be a reoccurrence of any hyperactive behavior."  The 
applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to establish she was unfit to perform the 
duties of her rate at the time of her discharge.   
 
  
8.  The fact that the DVA granted the applicant a service-connection for Bipolar 
Disorder is not proof by a preponderance of evidence that the Coast Guard committed 
an  error  or  injustice  by  not  granting  her  a  discharge  due  to  physical  disability.    The 
Court  of  Federal  Claims  has  stated  that  "[d]isability    ratings  by  the  Veterans 
Administration [now the Department of Veterans Affairs] and by the Armed Forces are 
made for different purposes.  The Veterans Administration determines to what extent a 
veteran's  earning  capacity  has  been  reduced  as  a  result  of  specific  injuries  or 
combination  of  injuries  [citation  omitted].    The  Armed  Forces,  on  the  other  hand, 
determine to what extent a member has been rendered unfit to perform the duties of his 
office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  a  physical  disability  [citation  omitted] 
Accordingly, Veterans' Administration ratings are not determinative of issues involved 
in military disability retirement cases."  Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983).   
 
 
9.  The applicant has failed to prove that her record should be corrected to show 
that  she  was  discharged  due  to  physical  disability.    However,  she  has  produced 
sufficient evidence to persuade the Board that her discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is unjust under the circumstances and should be upgraded.  The applicant's 
record should be corrected to show that she received a general discharge for general/ 
miscellaneous  reasons  with  the  corresponding  KND  separation  code.    The  Board  will 
permit  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  to  stand  because  the  applicant  did receive NJP for 
approximately 58 specifications of larceny and attempted larceny.  An RE-1 (eligible for 
reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  would  be  inappropriate  in  this  case  because  it  would 
indicate  that  the  applicant  served  her  enlistment  without  any  significant  problems, 
which is simply not the case. 
 
                                                 
2  Article 2.C.2. of the PDES Manual states the following:  "The sole standard to be used 
in making determinations of physical disability as a basis for retirement or separation 
shall  be  unfitness  to  perform  the  duties  of  office,  grade,  rank  or  rating  because  of 
disease or injury incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay.  Each case is to be 
considered  by  relating  the  nature  and  degree  of  physical  disability  of  the  service 
member  concerned  to  the  requirements  and  duties  that  service  members  may 
reasonably be expected to perform in their office, grade, rank or rating." 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

- 13 - 

 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant should be granted the relief discussed above. 

 
 

Final Decision:  BCMR No. 2002-061 
 

 

- 14 - 

 

ORDER 

 
 

 
The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  for  correction  of  her  military 
record is granted in part and denied in part.  Her record shall be corrected to show that 
she  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions.    Specifically,  the 
applicant's DD Form 214 shall be corrected as follows: 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Block 25 shall be corrected to show Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel 
Manual as the separation authority. 
 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show KND as the separation code. 
 
Block  28 
miscellaneous/general  reasons"  as 
separation. 

"separation 
the  narrative  reason 

shall  be 

corrected 

for 
for 

to 

show 

All other relief is denied. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher A. Cook