DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2003-015 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
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 application in this case was 
received  on  February  16,  2001.    The  BCMR  first  docketed  the  case  on  September  12, 
2001, as docket number 2001-127, upon receipt of the applicant’s military records from 
the National Personnel Record Center.  On February 15, 2002, the case was administra-
tively closed and referred to the Coast Guard’s Discharge Review Board (DRB) when 
the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard informed the Chair that all of the record correc-
tions sought by the applicant fell within the jurisdiction of the DRB and that the appli-
cant  had  not  exhausted  his  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  DRB  before 
applying  to  the  BCMR,  as  required  under  the  BCMR’s  rules  at  33  C.F.R.  § 52.13(b).  
However, in November 2002, the DRB notified the BCMR that it did not, in fact, have 
jurisdiction over the case, purportedly because medical issues that could theoretically 
result  in  money  being  owed  to  the  applicant  are  involved.    Therefore,  the  BCMR 
redocketed the case on November 25, 2002.   
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman apprentice (SA) who was honorably discharged 
from the Coast Guard on November 5, 1999, asked the Board to correct his discharge 
form (DD 214) by upgrading his narrative reason for separation from “Personality Dis-
order”  to  “something  reflecting  an  Honorable  character  of  service”;  by  similarly 
upgrading his separation code from JFX, which denotes an involuntary discharge due 
to a personality disorder; and by upgrading his reenlistment code from RE-4 (ineligible 

for  reenlistment).    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  narrative  reason  for  separation, 
separation  code,  and  reenlistment  code  on  his  DD  214  do  not  reflect  the  honorable 
character of his service. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On July 21, 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard and began boot camp.  
Prior to enlisting, he had completed a Report of Medical History, on which he stated 
that he had never been treated for a mental condition and had never suffered from anxi-
ety or depression.  On August 31, 1998, while still in boot camp, the applicant sought 
treatment for symptoms of depression, including loss of motivation, lack of energy, and 
feeling useless.  He said that he wanted to leave the Service.  A psychologist diagnosed 
him with an “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood,”1 found him fit for duty, and 
referred him for stress management training. 
 
 
In October 1998, the applicant was assigned to a cutter.  On February 1, 1999, he 
was counseled about being disrespectful to a second class petty officer and awarded 20 
hours  of  extra  duty.    On  his  performance  evaluation  dated  February  28,  1999,  he 
received two marks of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best) in the various perform-
ance categories, four marks of 3, nine marks of 4, and a satisfactory conduct mark. 
 
 
On August 31, 1999, the applicant received three marks of 2 on his second per-
formance evaluation.  These marks were documented on an administrative entry (“page 
7”),  which  stated  that  he  had  failed  to  qualify  as  a  security  watchstander  after  eight 
months,  when  qualifying  within  three  months  is  usual;  that  he  had  been  transferred 
from the engineering department to the deck department in June 1999 because of a lack 
of  interest  and  ability;  and  that  he  had  then  shown  no  potential  to  qualify  as  a 
helm/lookout watchstander.  The page 7 also stated that he “consistently disrupted the 
workplace  with  his  lack  of  commitment  towards  his  duties,”  responded  with  apathy 
when counseled and given a second chance, and frequently challenged his supervisors 
when  given  new  taskings.    Another  page  7  in  the  applicant’s  record  documents  his 
receipt of an unsatisfactory conduct mark on this evaluation “due to nonconformance to 
military  rules,  regulations,  and  standards.”    The  cutter’s  executive  officer  (XO)  noted 
that the applicant “has an obvious lack of enthusiasm and shows no commitment to any 
job he does.” 
 
 
On  September  13,  1999,  the  XO  sent  the  applicant  for  a  mental  evaluation 
because of his poor performance.  The applicant told the psychologist that he had deter-
mined that “the military life is not for him” and wanted to leave the service but that he 

                                                 
1  Adjustment  disorders  are  psychological  responses  to  identifiable  stressors  that  result  in  the  develop-
ment  of  clinically  significant  emotional  or  behavioral  symptoms.    Adjustment  disorders  must  resolve 
within  six  months  of  the  termination  of  the  stressor  but  may  persist  if  the  stressor  is  chronic  or  has 
enduring  consequences.  Adjustment  disorders  are  not  personality  disorders.    American  Psychiatric 
Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT 
REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 679.   The Coast Guard relies on the DSM when diagnosing members 
with psychological conditions.  See Coast Guard Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B), Chap. 5.B.1. 
 

was concerned about the effect that leaving before the end of his enlistment would have 
on his future.  The doctor diagnosed him with an “Adjustment Disorder,” found him fit 
for duty, and stated that he would discuss the matter with the XO. 
 
 
On September 20, 1999, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed him 
that he was initiating action to discharge him because he had been diagnosed with “an 
adjustment  disorder  rendering  you  unsuited  for  further  military  service.”    The  CO 
informed him that he was recommending that the applicant receive an honorable dis-
charge and an RE-4 reenlistment code, which would make him ineligible to reenlist.  He 
also  informed  the  applicant  that  he  was  entitled  to  submit  a  statement  on  his  own 
behalf. 
 
 
did not object to being discharged.  His statement appears as follows:  
 

On  September  22,  1999,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  indicating  that  he 

I [name] was informed by the commanding officers of the [cutter] that due to psychiatric 
reasons  not  suitable  for  the  criteria  of  the  military  and  the  standards  of  the  boat.   [sic] 
That I would see a medical professional for these same reasons listed above in regard to 
my honorable discharge from the service.  [sic] I also state that there are military related 
medical issues that are self evident that are in relation to a military mind set.  I hereby 
state that all the following information under the United States UCMJ is true.  [sic] 

 
 
On September 27, 1999, the applicant’s command sent him for a psychiatric eval-
uation because of his “failure to adapt to CG expectations, failure to become qualified, 
poor interpersonal relations, and some anxiety and depressed symptoms.”  Dr. T, a psy-
chiatrist  in  the  U.S.  Public  Health  Service,  described  the  applicant  as  “morose”  with 
“vague or evasive” thoughts.  He stated that the applicant “recognizes he is in trouble” 
but was “not blaming others.”  Dr. T reported that the applicant admitted that he had 
been treated by a psychologist in 1996 for depression.  He also reported that the appli-
cant denied having hallucinations “[a]fter some prodding” but stated that he heard a 
comforting  hum  and  had  short  “black-outs,”  anxiety,  eye  blinking,  and  feelings  of 
depersonalization and déjà vu.  Dr. T diagnosed the applicant with an “Adjustment Dis-
order with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood” and with “Schizoid and Schizotypal 
Personality traits,” but he reported that the applicant demonstrated “no ratable [mental 
health] disorder.”  He stated that the applicant’s “[p]ersonality characteristics make suc-
cessful adaptation to military not possible and predispose [him] to stress and depressive 
symptoms  in  cutter.    Should  no  organic  cause  of  his  symptoms  be  discovered,  then 
administrative  separation  by  PERSMAN  12-B  would  be  warranted.”    Dr.  T  further 
reported that the applicant was “[m]entally responsible to adhere to the right and can 
understand [the discharge] action contemplated.” 
 
On  September  30,  1999,  the  CO  requested  authority  to  discharge  the  applicant 
 
under Article 12.B.16.b.(2) of the Personnel Manual with an honorable discharge and an 

RE-4 reenlistment code because of the applicant’s diagnosed adjustment disorder.  He 
stated that 
 

[s]ince reporting aboard, [the applicant] has had difficulty adjusting to the military life-
style and life onboard a ship.  He fails to consistently perform at a satisfactory level.  He 
has failed to qualify at any of his assigned watch stations and is frequently distressed and 
distracted.  Upon reporting aboard, he was assigned to the engineering department, but 
had difficulty at his assigned duties and working with others.  In July 99, he was reas-
signed to the deck department, but his performance and interpersonal relations difficul-
ties persisted. 

 
On October 7, 1999, the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) ordered the 
 
CO to discharge the applicant, in accordance with Article 12.B.16., no later than Novem-
ber 5, 1999, with a separation code of JFX, which denotes an involuntary discharge due 
to a personality disorder.   
 
 
On October 29, 1999, the applicant was referred for another psychiatric evalua-
tion because he was found talking to himself and his behavior was strange.  The appli-
cant told Dr. T that he could feel spiritual forces that others could not.  Dr. T diagnosed 
him  with  a  “Schizotypal  Personality  Disorder”2  but  noted  that  the  existence  of  an 
“organic brain pathology” or “psychotic transformation” needed to be ruled out.  He 
also noted that the applicant was “[a]t higher risk for transfer to psychotic [disorder] 
than  his  peers.”    Although  Dr.  T  ordered  a  “sleep-deprived”  electro-encephalogram 
(EEG) of the applicant’s brain, no EEG results are in the record.  Dr. T found the appli-
cant to be “fit for discharge.” 
 

Six  days  later,  on  November  5,  1999,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged 
with a JFX separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and “Personality Disorder” as 
the narrative reason for separation.  
 
 
In  January  2000,  the  applicant  sought  psychiatric  treatment.    The  psychiatrist 
found that he was “paranoid, psychotic, and angry.”  On June 16, 2000, the applicant 

                                                 
2  According  to  the  DSM-IV-TR,  a  someone  with  a  “schizotypal  personality  disorder”  experiences  “a 
pervasive  pattern  of  social  and  interpersonal  deficits  marked  by  acute  discomfort  with,  and  reduced 
capacity  for,  close  relationships  as  well  as  by  cognitive  or  perceptual  distortions  and  eccentricities  of 
behavior.  This pattern begins by early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts.”  DSM-IV-TR, p. 
697.  Family and adoption studies indicate that schizotypal personality disorder is part of “schizophrenia 
spectrum,” along with schizoaffective disorder.  Id. at 309.  
  

was diagnosed with a “Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type”3 and a “Psychotic Dis-
order, NOS [not otherwise specified].”4  
 
On January 2, 2001, the applicant filed a claim with the Department of Veterans 
 
Affairs (DVA)  seeking disability benefits.   The DVA  found that his mental  condition, 
which had been diagnosed as “Schizoaffective Disorder”5 was service-connected, and it 
awarded him a 30 percent disability rating effective January 2, 2001.  The DVA found 
that  his  service  in  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  cause  the  disorder  and  that  the  disorder 
existed prior to his enlistment, but that his service likely “exacerbate[d] it or cause[d] it 
to present perhaps earlier or in a more difficult way for him.” 

                                                 
3    “Delusional  disorder,  persecutory  type”  is  a  psychotic  disorder  (rather  than  a  personality  disorder) 
characterized by delusions of persecution but with no prominent auditory or visual hallucinations.  DSM-
IV-TR, p. 323-25.  All psychotic disorders are considered physical disabilities by the Coast Guard. 
 
4    “Psychotic  disorder,  NOS”  is  a  diagnosis  made  “if  insufficient  information  is  available  to  choose 
between  Schizophrenia  and  other  Psychotic  Disorders  (e.g.,  Schizoaffective  Disorder).”  DSM-IV-TR,  p. 
311.  
 
5    “Schizoaffective  disorder”  is  a  psychotic  disorder  that  is  characterized  by  the  symptoms  of  schizo-
phrenia,  such  as  delusions,  hallucinations,  disorganized  speech,  and  grossly  disorganized  or  catatonic 
behavior, plus a major depressive and/or manic disorder.  The typical age at onset is early adulthood, 
and  it  is  sometimes  preceded  by  a  schizoid,  schizotypal,  borderline,  or  paranoid  personality  disorder.  
DSM-IV-TR,  p.  319-21.    Family  and  adoption  studies  indicate  that  schizoaffective  disorder  is  part  of 
“schizophrenia spectrum,” along with schizotypal personality disorder.  Id. at 309. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On November 14, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion recommending that the Board deny the requested relief for lack of merit.  
 

The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant’s record “is replete with documen-
tation of unsuitability during his service in the Coast Guard.”  He stated that the appli-
cant had not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that his Coast 
Guard  doctors  and  his  chain  of  command  had  acted  lawfully,  correctly,  and  in  good 
faith  in  diagnosing  and  discharging  him.    Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037 
(Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Moreover, he 
argued that the Coast Guard had acted in accordance with Article 12.B.16.h. of the Per-
sonnel Manual in that the applicant  was diagnosed by a psychiatrist prior to his dis-
charge and was found to have no ratable disabilities, to know right from wrong and be 
able to adhere to the right, and to understand why he was being discharged.  The Chief 
Counsel argued that an adjustment disorder with schizoid and schizotypal personality 
traits counts as a personality disorder under Chapter 5.B. of the Medical Manual and 
that both adjustment and personality disorders are grounds for administrative separa-
tion. 

 
The Chief Counsel pointed out that the applicant received all due process under 
Article 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual and that he did not object to being separated.  
He also pointed out that if the applicant had answered questions about his history of 
mental  health  treatment  on  his  pre-enlistment  forms  accurately,  he  could  have  been 
rejected for enlistment.6 

 
In  addition,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  is  misconstruing  the 
meaning of his RE-4 and JFX codes and the narrative reason for separation on his DD 
214.  The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s DD 214 accurately reflects the cause 
of his discharge and that a mental health disorder “is not to be confused with dishonor.  
In fact, there is nothing on his DD 214 to reflect anything but Honorable service.”  He 
alleged that, under COMDTINST M1900.4D, a member receiving a JFX separation code 
automatically receives an RE-4 reenlistment code unless an RE-3G code is authorized by 
the Commandant, which did not happen in the applicant’s case. 
 
 
him to respond.  No response was received. 
 

The BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and invited 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

                                                 
6  In addition, the Chief Counsel pointed out that in 1997, the applicant was denied entry in the Air Force 
because of his entrance medical examination and yet stated on his application to the Coast Guard that he 
had never been rejected for military service because of a physical, mental, or other reason. 

Administrative Separations for Unsuitability 
 
 
Article  12.B.16  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (PM)  authorizes  enlisted 
personnel to be discharged by reason of unsuitability at the direction of the Comman-
dant for several reasons, including inaptitude, personality disorders, apathy, defective 
attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.  PM Article 12.B.16.b authorizes 
unsuitability discharges for members diagnosed with one of the “personality behavior 
disorders … listed in Chapter 5, CG Medical Manual … .”  
 

Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) lists the person-
ality disorders that qualify a member for administrative discharge pursuant to Article 
12 of the Personnel Manual.  The list includes paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal per-
sonality  disorders  and  “[p]ersonality  trait(s)  considered  unfitting  per  paragraph  3-F-
16.c.”  That paragraph states the following: 

 
Personality, sexual, factitious, psychoactive substance use disorders; personality trait(s); 
disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified.  These conditions may render an 
individual  administratively  unfit  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). 
 
Chapter 5.B.3 of the Medical Manual states that adjustment disorders “are gener-
ally treatable and not usually grounds for separation.  However, when these conditions 
persist or treatment is likely to be prolonged or non-curative (e.g. inability to adjust to 
military life …) process in accordance with [Article 12 of the Personnel Manual] as nec-
essary.”  Chapter 3.F.16.d 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 treat-
ment, administrative separation should be recommended (see Section 5-B).” 
 
 
Article  12.B.16.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  every  member  dis-
charged for unsuitability under the article shall be notified of the reason he is being con-
sidered for discharge and shall be allowed to submit a statement on his own behalf.  
 

PM Article 12.B.16.h. provides that when a member is being considered for dis-
charge  for  unsuitability  and  psychiatric  considerations  are  involved,  the  member 
should be examined by a psychiatrist, if available, and “[h]is 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.” 

 
Under  paragraph  4.d.(7)  of  COMDTINST  1910.1,  members  discharged  for 

unsuitability under PM Article 12.B.16. are not eligible for separation pay. 

 
Physical Disability Separations 
 
Chapter  5.B.7.  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  schizoaffective  disorder  and 
 
psychotic disorder NOS are disqualifying for military service and that members with 
these conditions should be evaluated by medical boards and processed for separation 
by reason of physical disability under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). 
 
 
Chapter 2.C.2.a. of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C) provides that the 
“sole standard” for “making determinations of physical disability as a basis for retire-
ment or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rat-
ing because of disease or injury incurred or aggravated through military service.” 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to per-
 
form the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical dis-
ability incurred while entitled to basic pay” may be retired if the disability is (1) perma-
nent and stable, (2) not a result of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 
years of service, “at least 30 percent under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in 
use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of the determination.”  Title 10 
U.S.C.  § 1203  provides  that  such  a  member  whose  disability  is  rated  at  only  10  or  20 
percent under the VASRD shall be discharged with severance pay.  
  

Separations for Misconduct 

Chapter  2.C.5.a.  of  the  PDES  Manual  provides  that  “clear  and  convincing  evi-
dence is required to establish the existence of any injury or disease before a member’s 
entrance into the Coast Guard.”  Chapter 2.B.4. provides that “[i]njury or disease is pre-
sumed to be incurred in the line of duty.  The presumption stands unless rebutted by 
clear and convincing evidence.”   

 
Chapter 2.B.1. and 3. state that members are presumed to be fit for duty when 
they  enter  the  Coast  Guard  and  that  “[a]ny  increase  in  the  degree  of  a  preservice 
impairment which occurs during active service is presumed to be due to aggravation 
unless it is shown to be due to the natural progression of the disease or injury which 
existed  prior  to  entry  on  active  duty.”    Chapter  2.C.5.b.  states  that  “[w]hen  accepted 
medical principles establish the existence of an impairment prior to entrance into serv-
ice, no other corroborating evidence is necessary.”  This provision includes psychiatric 
conditions when the evaluee’s recall of his medical history prior to enlistment is credi-
ble or if there is clear and convincing corroborative evidence.  Chap. 2.C.5.b.(3).  Chap-
ter  2.C.6.a.  states  that  “[a]ggravation  during  Coast  Guard  service  may  not  be  found 
when the  medical evidence confirms the increase in disability to  be due  solely to the 
natural progression of a disease or injury which is confirmed to have existed prior to 
entry.” 
 

 
Article  12.B.18.b.(2)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  CGPC  to  discharge  a 
member  for  misconduct  upon  discovery  that  the  member  “[p]rocure[d]  a  fraudulent 
enlistment, induction, or period of active service through any deliberate material mis-
representation,  omission  or  concealment  which,  if  known  at  the  time,  might  have 
resulted in rejection.”  It goes on to specifically encompass the concealment of the mem-
ber’s pre-enlistment medical history.  PM Article 12.B.18.a. states that the discharge may 
be honorable, general, or other than honorable.   
 
Completing the DD 214 
 
 
Article 1.E. of the COMDTINST M1900.4D states that a member’s DD 214 should 
show a separation authority, SPD code, and reenlistment code “as shown in the SPD 
Handbook or as stated by [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 

SPD 
Code 
JFX 

Narrative Reason 
for Separation 
Personality 
Disorder 

 

RE Code 
RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.16. 

JFN 

JFV 

Disability, Existed 
Prior to Service, 
Medical Board 
Condition, Not a 
Disability 

RE-3P 

12.B.15. 

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. 
Involuntary discharge [by direction] for physical 
disability which existed prior to entry on active duty and 
was established by a medical board. 
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.) 

 
Under Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual, a member’s commanding officer 
 
has authority to decide which of the permissible RE codes listed in the SPD Handbook 
the  member  is  assigned.    However,  under  PM  Article  1.G.5.,  members  may  only  be 
eligible to reenlist if their average evaluations marks in each performance category are 
at  least  a  three.    An  RE-3  code  means  that  the  member  is  eligible  except  for  a 
disqualifying factor, which is denoted by the attached letter. 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

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

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 

1. 

 
2. 

3. 

The record indicates that, prior to the applicant’s discharge, he was diag-
 
nosed  first  with  an  adjustment  disorder  with  depressed  mood  during  boot  camp  in 
August 1998; second, with an adjustment disorder with schizoid and schizotypal per-
sonality traits in September 1999; and third, with a schizotypal personality disorder in 
October 1999.  On September 27, 1999, Dr. T, the psychiatrist who examined him for the 
Coast  Guard,  recommended  that  an  “organic  cause”  of  the  applicant’s  symptoms  be 
investigated.    On  October  29,  1999,  Dr.  T  noted  that  the  applicant’s  symptoms, 
including his talking to himself and feeling “spiritual forces” around him, might be the 
result  of  an  “organic  brain  pathology”  or  “psychotic  transformation”  and  that  these 
possibilities should be investigated.  However, Dr. T found him “fit for discharge,” and 
six days later, the applicant was administratively discharged based on his  previously 
diagnosed  adjustment  disorder.    Two  months  later,  the  applicant  was  found  to  be 
psychotic,  and  his  current  diagnosis  is  schizoaffective  disorder,  which  is  a  psychosis 
and  physical  disability  that  normally  entitles  a  member  to  PDES  processing  and  a 
disability separation.  Medical Manual, Chapter 5.B.7. 
   
The  American  Psychiatric  Association’s  Diagnostic  and  Statistical  Manual, 
 
which is used by the Coast Guard to diagnosis members’ mental conditions, states that 
a diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder is sometimes a precursor to schizoaffec-
tive  disorder.7    In  light  of  Dr.  T’s  findings  on  October  29,  1999,  and  the  fact  that  the 
applicant was diagnosed as psychotic about two months after his discharge, the Board 
finds that the symptoms that caused the applicant’s discharge were in fact attributable 
to his incipient psychosis rather than to a permanent personality disorder.  Although 
the  Coast  Guard  apparently  was  not  certain,  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  discharge, 
that he was becoming psychotic, the Coast Guard was aware that his symptoms might 
be due to a “psychotic transformation.”  In other words, the Coast Guard knew that, 
rather than having merely a personality disorder, the applicant might have an incipient 
psychosis. 
 
 
Hindsight  is  20/20,  however,  and  the  Coast  Guard  could  not  know  for 
sure, at the time of the applicant’s discharge, that he was developing a physical disabil-
ity—schizoaffective disorder.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual does not state that all 
people diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorders develop a psychosis.8  When a 
psychiatrist diagnoses a member with a schizotypal personality disorder that interferes 
with his performance of duty, the member may be administratively discharged with a 
JFX separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and “Personality Disorder” as the nar-
                                                 
7  DSM-IV-TR, p. 321. 
 
8  See Id. at 697-701.  
 

4. 

5. 

6. 

rative  reason  for reenlistment.    PM  Article  12.B.16.;  Medical  Manual,  Chap.  5.B.;  SPD 
Handbook.  Because the record shows that the applicant was diagnosed with a person-
ality disorder that strongly interfered with his performance of duty and that he received 
all due process under PM Article 12.B.16., the Board concludes that, given the knowl-
edge available at the time, the Coast Guard committed no error in discharging him and 
assigning him an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
 
 
The  BCMR’s  mandate  is  not  limited  to  correcting  errors,  however,  but 
includes correcting injustices found in members’ military records.  Therefore, although 
the Coast Guard did not violate any regulations in discharging the applicant under PM 
Article 12.B.16., the Board must decide whether his DD 214 contains an injustice in light 
of the fact that the applicant was, at the time of his discharge, suffering from incipient 
schizoaffective disorder (a disability) rather than a permanent personality disorder. 
 

“Personality  Disorder”  is  the  only  narrative  reason  for  separation  in  the 
SPD Handbook that constitutes a medical diagnosis.  Members discharged for any med-
ical (physical or psychological) condition other than a diagnosed personality disorder 
receive a non-specific narrative reason for separation, such as “Disability” or “Condi-
tion, Not a Disability.”  Given that the applicant actually had an incipient psychosis at 
the time of his discharge rather than a permanent personality disorder, the Board finds 
that the JFX separation code and narrative reason for separation on his DD 214 are, in 
hindsight,  inaccurate and  unjust.    Although  there  are  a  limited  number  of  separation 
codes available to the Coast Guard in the SPD Handbook, it is extremely important for 
veterans’ discharge papers to be accurate, fair, and not unnecessarily prejudicial.  There-
fore, the Board finds that the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason for sep-
aration should be corrected to reflect the fact that the true cause of his discharge was his 
incipient psychosis (“Disability”) rather than “Personality Disorder.” 

 On September 27, 1999, the applicant admitted to Dr. T that he had been 
treated  for  depression  in  1996,  prior  to  his  enlistment.    The  record  indicates  that  the 
applicant failed to disclose this important fact on his application for enlistment.9  Dis-
closure of his prior treatment for depression might have precluded his enlistment.  The 
record also indicates that the applicant himself acknowledged that his mental condition 
was already interfering with his performance of duty on August 31, 1998, just six weeks 
after his enlistment on July 21, 1998.  In light of this evidence, the Board is convinced 
that the applicant’s symptoms of incipient psychosis began prior to his enlistment. See 
PDES Manual, Chap. 2.C.5.b.  His mental disability was incurred prior to his enlistment. 

 
7. 

 

                                                 
9  The Board notes that the applicant could have been discharged for fraudulent enlistment under Article 
12.B.18.b.(2) of the Personnel Manual. 
 

8. 

Although the DVA concluded that the applicant’s condition was probably 
aggravated  or  accelerated  by  his  service,  the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  in  the 
record  to  conclude  that  his  service  aggravated  or  accelerated  the  onset  of  his 
psychosis.10  There is no evidence of any traumatic incidents that could have aggravated 
or accelerated his condition.  His evaluation reports and the statement of the applicant’s 
CO  on  September  30,  1999,  indicate  that  there  was  no  significant  decline  in  the 
applicant’s  performance  and  that  his  job  performance  was  uniformly  unsatisfactory 
throughout his year on the cutter.  Moreover, Chapters 2.B.3. and 2.C.6.a. of the PDES 
Manual  preclude  a  finding  of  aggravation  when  the  increase  in  disability,  if  any,  is 
attributable to the natural progression of a disease which is confirmed to have existed 
prior to entry.   

 
9. 

The Board finds that the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected by chang-
ing his narrative reason for reenlistment to “Disability, Existed Prior to Service” to bet-
ter and less prejudicially reflect his actual medical status at the time of his discharge.  
Although  such  determinations  are  normally  made  by  a  medical  board,  no  medical 
board  was  required  prior  to  the  applicant’s  discharge  because  his  incipient  disability 
was only a matter of speculation at the time.  The authority to be cited for disability dis-
charges is Article 12.B.15. of the Personnel Manual, and the corresponding separation 
code under the SPD Handbook is JFN.  The only allowable reenlistment code for a dis-
ability discharge is RE-3P, which means that the veteran is not eligible for reenlistment 
unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard that he no longer has a mental 
disability that might interfere with his performance of duty. 

 
10.  Accordingly,  the  Board  should  grant  relief  by  correcting  the  applicant’s 
DD 214 to show that he was discharged under Article 12.B.15. of the Personnel Manual 
with  separation  code  JFN,  reenlistment  code  RE-3P,  and  “Disability,  Existed  Prior  to 
Service” as his narrative reason for separation. 

 
 

 

                                                 
10  In a BCMR case, the burden of proof for each element of the case rests with the applicant.  33 C.F.R. 
§ 52.24(b). 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correc-

ORDER 

 

tion of his military record is granted as follows: 

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

the authority of Article 12.B.15. of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A). 

 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code JFN. 
 
Block 27 shall be corrected to show that he received reenlistment code RE-3P. 
 
Block  28  shall  be  corrected  to  show  “DISABILITY,  EXISTED  PRIOR  TO 

SERVICE” 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. 
 
 
   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

_______________________________ 
 Janis Monk 

_______________________________ 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

_______________________________ 
 Thomas H. Van Horn