DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-144 
 
XXXXXX, Xxxxxx, X. 
xxx xx xxxx, XXXX  

 

 
 

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  23,  2002,  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  July  24,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  military  record  by  changing  the 
narrative  reason  and  reenlistment  code  on  her  discharge  form  (DD  form  214).  
Specifically, she asked that her narrative reason be changed from “personality disorder” 
to “convenience of the government,” and that her reenlistment code be upgraded from 
RE-4  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment),  accordingly.    She  also  asked  that  the  corrected 
discharge form reflect all medals and awards she was issued during her Coast Guard 
enlistment. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  her  due  process  rights  were  violated  in  connection 
with  her  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  when  she  was  “falsely  labeled”  with  a 
personality disorder.  She alleged that her records contain no evidence that she ever had 
or was ever diagnosed with a personality disorder.  She contended that if her records 
are not corrected, it would be “detrimental to [her] career” to be “unjustly labeled for 
life ….” 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

On September 17, 19xx, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four  years.    Her  record  contains  a  medical  report  of  her  pre-enlistment  medical 
examination, dated June 25, 19xx, which states that the applicant was qualified for her 
original enlistment.  Her record also contains a medical history form, dated September 
18,  19xx,  which  the  applicant  completed  during  recruit  processing  at  a  Military 
Entrance  Processing  Station  (MEPS).    On  that  form,  the  applicant  answered  “no”  in 
response  to  whether  she  (a)  had  attempted  suicide;  (b)  had  or  has  depression  or 
excessive  worry;    (c)  had  or  has  nervous  trouble  of  any  sort;  and  (d)  had  or  has  any 
illness  or  injury  other  than  those  already  noted.    Based  on  her  MEPS  evaluation  and 
initial  physical  examination,  the  applicant  was  found  to  be  in  good  health.    After 
completing boot camp, she was assigned to a unit. 
 

Beginning in September 19xx, the applicant sought treatment at a Coast Guard 
clinic  for  “interpersonal  conflicts,  disturbed  sleep  pattern,  and  tearfulness.”    She 
attended counseling sessions with a certified Physician’s Assistant (PA) and a licensed 
clinical social worker from the Air Force—neither of which was a licensed psychiatrist.  
According  to  the  PA’s  notes,  he  assessed  her  as  having  a  “mild  depressive  episode.”  
During a later session, he noted that her depression had “stabilized” when the applicant 
reported that her mood had improved with prescribed medication.  With respect to her 
visits with the clinical social worker, the applicant’s military medical record contains no 
medical notes.   
 

On January 9, 19xx, the applicant was seen by the PA and told him that she had 
been sexually assaulted on the previous evening.  She was diagnosed as having “major 
depressive episode, post traumatic stress, and insomnia and adjustment disorder with 
anxiety  and  depressed  moods.”    Also  on  this  day,  the  applicant  was  seen  by  the 
licensed clinical social worker.  Again, there are no medical notes for the visit. 
 

On  January  10,  19xx,  the  PA  completed  a  one-page  narrative  summary  on  the 
applicant’s  condition.    In  that  report,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  “adjustment 
disorder  with  mixed  anxiety  and  depressed  moods,  insomnia,  major  depressive 
episode, and post traumatic stress.”  The PA also stated that the applicant’s prognosis 
was “poor,” that she was “not fit for full duty,” and that she “should not be returned to 
her present command.”  The PA recommended that she receive a “medical separation 
[in  accordance  with]  Chapter  5  of  the  Medical  Manual  …  and  Chapter  12  of  the 
Personnel Manual, … for the convenience of the government.” 

 
On January 12, 19xx, the applicant was referred by the PA to a civilian medical 
facility for evaluation and counseling.  Based on that consultation, a narrative clinical 
summary,  dated  January  16,  19xx,  was  prepared  on  the  applicant’s  evaluation.  Her 
record contains only one page of the two-page clinical summary, which documents that 

she  had  attempted  suicide  at  17  years  old,  that  she  had  a  pre-enlistment  history  of 
bulimia  and  of  self-harming  behavior  (cutting  and/or  burning  herself  when  angry).  
During  counseling,  she  denied  that  any  of  these  behaviors  had  occurred  between  the 
start of her military service and  before the time she  was  sexually  assaulted.   She  was 
diagnosed with acute stress reaction. 
 
 
On January 20, 19xx, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded a copy 
of  the  January  10,  19xx  narrative  summary  prepared  by  the  PA  to  the  Group 
Commander and recommended that the applicant be separated for convenience of the 
government, under the provisions of Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual.   
 
 
On  January  21,  19xx,  the  applicant  was  formally  notified  that  the  Group 
Commander  had  initiated  action  to  discharge  her  based  on  unsuitability,  pursuant  to 
Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  The Group Commander also notified her that 
she  had  a  right  to  submit  a  statement  on  her  own  behalf.    On  the  same  day,  the 
applicant signed a statement acknowledging the notification, indicating that she waived 
her right to submit a statement and did not object to being discharged.   
 

On  January  22,  19xx,  the  Group  Commander  recommended  to  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  for  unsuitability.    The 
message  indicates  that  the  PA  (who  prepared  the  narrative  summary)  diagnosed  the 
applicant with adjustment disorder, unspecified.   
 

On January 23, 19xx, a report was prepared by a civilian doctor, “Dr. S,” upon 
the  applicant’s  discharge  from  the  civilian  medical  facility.    That  report  indicated  a 
discharge  diagnosis  of  “adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  emotional  features  and 
bulimia  nervosa”  and,  according  to  CGPC,  specifically  ruled  out  “borderline 
personality.”  There was only one page of this two-page report included in her record, 
and it does not state the credentials of Dr. S.   
 
On  February  2,  19xx,  CGPC  ordered  the  Group  Commander  to  discharge  the 
 
applicant  by  reason  of  unsuitability  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual,  no  later  than  February  26,  19xx,  with  a  separation  code  of  JFX  (personality 
disorder).    The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  February  6,  19xx,  with  a  JFX 
separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and “Personality Disorder” as the narrative 
reason for separation.  The applicant’s DD form 214 also indicates that she was awarded 
the  Coast  Guard  Pistol  Marksman  Ribbon  and  the  Coast  Guard  Rifleman  Marksman 
Ribbon.   
 
 
was credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 20 days of active duty service. 
 

At the time of her separation, the applicant was serving in the grade of E-2 and 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  December  19,  2002,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  provided 
comments  to  the  Board.    He  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on  the 
case  prepared  by  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).    In  concurring  with 
CGPC’s analysis, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant partial relief.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  no  error  when  it 
discharged the applicant with an RE-4 reenlistment code.  He asserted that he opposes 
upgrading her reenlistment code because she did not reveal her pre-enlistment attempt 
at  suicide  and  her  pre-enlistment  history  of  bulimia  and  self-harming  behavior.    He 
asserted that although the applicant may not have been automatically disqualified for 
enlistment, she denied the government the opportunity to evaluate her condition fully. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  a  service  member  “has  no  absolute  right  to 
 
remain  in  the  service”  and  “may  be  appropriately  and  administratively  discharged” 
prior  to  the  end  of  his  or  her  enlistment,  provided  that  all  applicable  laws  and 
regulations are complied with.  Giglio v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 160, 166 (1989); Rowe 
v.  United  States,  167  Ct.  Cl.  468,  472  (1964),  cert.  denied,  380  U.S.  961  (1965);  Keef  v. 
United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 454, 463 (1963); McAuley v. United States, 158 Ct. Cl. 359, 364 
(1962).   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  as  a  member  with  less  than  8  years  of  service, 
under Article 12.B.16.i. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled only to (1) 
notice of the reason for discharge, and (2) an opportunity to make a written statement.  
He argued that because the applicant acknowledged her rights and declined to make a 
statement, the record establishes that she did not object to being  discharged from the 
Coast Guard.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  error  when  it 
discharged the applicant with a separation code of JFX and “Personality Disorder” as 
the narrative reason for separation.  He stated that when the CO provided the applicant 
with notice and the opportunity to make a statement, he should have also advised the 
applicant  that  the  nature  of  her  “unsuitability”  for  military  service  was  her  alleged 
“personality disorder.”  Moreover, he stated that the applicant was not evaluated by a 
psychiatrist, as required by Article 12.B.16.h of the Personnel Manual.  He asserted that 
the applicant’s history may arguably establish that she should have been discharged for 
“Personality Disorder.”  However, her command failed to follow the Personnel Manual 
requirements to actually establish her condition.  Therefore, he stated, the Coast Guard 
does  not  oppose  changing  the  applicant’s  separation  code  to  JND  and  the  narrative 
reason to “separation for miscellaneous/general reasons.”   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  issued  an  Honorable 
Discharge  Certificate  and  an  Honorable  Discharge  Button,  as  she  had  requested.    He 

stated that Coast Guard buttons are not, however, listed on DD form 214s.  He stated 
that the applicant did not earn a Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal because  she had 
not completed three years of active duty service.  Therefore, he stated that the listing of 
awards on her DD form 214 is correct.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 23, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 
the applicant and invited her to respond within 15 days.  The applicant responded on 
January  6,  2003,  informing  the  Board  that  she  accepts  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory 
opinion. 
 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article  12-B-16.h.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  19xx  required  that  a 
member  being  considered  for  discharge  for 
‘unsuitability’  receive  a  physical 
examination.  It also requires that when there are psychiatric considerations involved as 
the reason for the discharge, the member be evaluated by a psychiatrist, if available. 
 

Article 12-B-12.a.(12) provides that the Commandant may authorize or direct the 
separation  of  enlisted  personnel  for  the  convenience  of  the  Government  for  a 
“[c]ondition, not physical disability which interferes with performance of duty….” 
 
 
Article  12-B-16.b.2.  provides  that  members  considered  unsuitable  for  further 
service  may  be  separated  with  “personality  disorders,”  as  determined  by  medical 
authority.   
 
 
Article 12.B.16.d. provides that every member discharged under Article 12-B-16 
shall be notified of the reason for which she is being considered for discharge and shall 
be allowed to submit a statement on his own behalf.  
 
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 
 
Article  5.B.2.  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  “adjustment  disorders”  are 
“generally  treatable  and  not  usually  grounds  for  separation.    However,  when  these 
conditions persist or treatment is likely to be prolonged or non-curative, (e.g., inability 
to adjust to military life/sea duty, separation from family/friends), [it is necessary to] 
process [the member] in accordance with Chapter 12, [of the] Personnel Manual….” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

1. 

2. 

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. 
 
 
As  a  member  with  fewer  than  eight  years  of  active  duty  service,  the 
applicant  was  entitled  to  notice  of  the  reasons  which  she  was  being  considered  for 
discharge and an opportunity to make a written statement.  The record indicates that 
the applicant was provided with notice that she was being recommended for separation 
under Article 12-B-16.d. of the Personnel Manual, and that she acknowledged notice of 
the  discharge  proceedings  and  waived  her  right  to  make  a  statement.    However,  the 
record also indicates that her CO failed to specify that she was being discharged due to 
an alleged “personality disorder.”  In failing to fully advise the applicant of the reason 
for  her  “unsuitability,”  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  provide  her  with  sufficient  notice  to 
give her informed consent to being discharged for “unsuitability” due to “personality 
disorder.”   
 
 
The  Coast  Guard  admits  that  the  applicant  was  not  evaluated  by  a 
psychiatrist, as required by Article 12-B-16.h. of the Personnel Manual.  Instead, she was 
evaluated by a Coast Guard PA and a licensed clinical social worker from the Air Force, 
despite there being no evidence to the effect that a psychiatrist was unavailable.  The 
applicant  was  subsequently  discharged  for  “unsuitability”  due  to  “personality 
disorder”  although  her  record  fails  to  indicate  that  she  was  ever  diagnosed  with  a 
personality disorder.  Consequently, the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed 
an error by discharging the applicant for “Personality Disorder” with a separation code 
of JFX.   
 

3. 

4. 

Under  Article  5.B.2.  of  the  Medical  Manual,  the  diagnosis  of  adjustment 
disorder  is  normally  not  grounds  for  separation  provided  that  the  condition  is  not 
considered  long-term  or  untreatable.    In  the  applicant’s  case,  the  Coast  Guard  PA 
diagnosed the applicant on January 9, 19xx with an adjustment disorder and considered 
her prognosis to be “poor.”  The record also indicates that only 28 days after she was 
diagnosed,  the  applicant  was  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  record  fails  to 
indicate that the applicant was given sufficient time to receive treatment to determine 
her long-term prognosis; however, the diagnosis of adjustment disorder was confirmed 
by other medical personnel.  Therefore, in light of the evidence of the applicant having a 
condition,  not  a  disability,  that  interfered  with  her  performance  of  duty,  the  Board 
agrees with the Chief Counsel that the applicant’s DD form 214 should be corrected to 
show that she was separated for convenience of the government, under Article 12-A-12 
of the Personnel Manual.  Moreover, the applicant’s SPD code should be changed from 

JFX  to  JND  and  the  narrative  reason  from  “Personality  Disorder”  to  “Separation  for 
Miscellaneous/General Reasons.”   

 
5. 

The  applicant  requested  that  the  Board  upgrade  her  reenlistment  code 
from  an  RE-4.    The  record  indicates  that  during  her  pre-enlistment  processing,  the 
applicant failed to reveal her history of bulimia, self-harming behaviors, and attempted 
suicide.    As  a  result,  the  Coast  Guard  was unable  to  fully  evaluate  her  mental  health 
with respect to her eligibility for enlistment.  Members separated with a “Separation for 
Miscellaneous/General  Reason”  narrative  reason  with  a  JND  separation  code  may  be 
assigned  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    Consequently,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove 
that the Coast Guard committed error in assigning her an RE-4 reenlistment code.   

 
6. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  she  earned  a  Coast  Guard  Good  Conduct 
award,  but  it  was  not  reflected  on  her  DD  form  214.    To  earn  a  Coast  Guard  Good 
Conduct  Medal,  members  must  have  continuously  served  on  active  duty  for  a 
minimum  of  three  years.    See  Article  5.A.6.B.1.a.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Medals  and 
Awards Manual.  Because, the applicant had served for 1 year, 4 months, and 20 days at 
the time of her discharge, she was not entitled to a Good Conduct award.   

 
7. 

relief. 
 
 

In accordance with the foregoing, the applicant should be granted partial 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

to 

 

28 

be 

FOR 

shall 

show 

Block 

corrected 

“SEPARATION 

No other relief is granted.   

Block 26 shall be corrected to show that she received the separation code JND. 

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

The application of                             , for the correction of her military record is 

 
 
granted as follows:   
 
 
Block 25 on her DD form 214 shall be corrected to show that she was discharged 
under the authority of Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6). 
 
 
 
 
MISCELLANEOUS/GENERAL REASONS” as the narrative reason for separation. 
 
 
corrections made in the original (not by hand and not by issuing a DD form 215). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan