DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2003-137 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 case was docketed on Septem-
ber 15, 2003, upon receipt of the application and military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  20,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1) in the Coast Guard, 
asked the Board to correct his military record by upgrading the reenlistment code on his 
discharge form (DD 214) so that he would be eligible to reenlist.  He was discharged on 
May 27, 1988, after just nine months and four days of active duty, with an RE-4 reen-
listment code (ineligible for reenlistment), a JMB separation code (unsuitable due to a 
personality disorder), and “unsuitability” as the narrative reason for separation shown 
on his DD 214.  He asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code to at least RE-3.  
(An RE-3 code means that a member is eligible for reenlistment except for an interfering 
condition.  The member must receive a waiver from the Service through his recruiter to 
reenlist.) 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that when he joined the Coast Guard at age 20 in 1987, he 
was very immature and upset by the fact that his father had recently left his mother for 

another woman and they were calling him and “slandering” each other.  He stated that 
he joined the Coast Guard primarily to escape from this family situation, as he had been 
living at home.   
 

The applicant alleged that he was not kicked out of the Coast Guard and could 
have stayed in.  He alleged that in 1988, he “took advantage of an early-out program in 
1988 made possible by budget cuts of the Reagan Administration and went home.”  He 
alleged that he initiated his discharge when he heard about the program. 

 
The applicant stated that while in the Coast Guard, he did have a problem with a 
roommate, who kept using his toiletries without asking.  The two of them went to cap-
tain’s mast for fighting.  But they learned their lessons, and the matter was quickly for-
gotten. 
 
The applicant stated that, upon his discharge, he worked for a family friend for 
several years while he attended school.  He became a licensed vocational nurse and is 
“currently working at hospitals and long-term care facilities.”  He alleged that he loves 
what he is doing but would like the chance to serve the wounded soldiers in Iraq.  He 
also alleged that he discovered the error in his record in March 2003. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On August 24, 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years.  After completing boot camp on October 23, 1987, he was advanced to seaman 
apprentice (SA; pay grade E-2) and assigned to Group XXXXXXXXX. 
 
 
On  December  9,  1987,  the  applicant  was  taken  to  captain’s  mast  for  having 
“struck another Coast Guard [member] on the head with a cordless phone and cut him 
above the left eye” two days earlier.  The Officer in Charge (OIC) sentenced him to “for-
feit 3 days pay for 1 month, 7 days restriction, 14 days extra duty.”  However, the OIC 
suspended the forfeiture of pay and extra duty for two months. 
 
 
On January 20, 1988, the applicant was counseled in writing by his commanding 
officer (CO) about his performance.  The CO stated that while serving at his first duty 
station (a cutter), the applicant had been “unable or unwilling to cooperate with [his] 
shipmates” and had repeatedly shown a lack of respect for authority.  Therefore, the CO 
wrote,  he  had  been  transferred  ashore  to  the  Engineering  Department  on  January  5, 
1988.  The CO further stated that, despite continuing counseling by his new supervisors, 
the applicant had not shown any effort to improve his conduct, show respect for others, 
or  “contribute  to  the  team  effort.”    In  addition,  a  complaint  had  been  lodged  against 
him  regarding  his  conduct  with  a  minor  female,  “which  reflects  very  poorly  on  the 
Coast Guard.”  Therefore, the CO stated, he was going “to investigate the feasibility of 
your  administrative  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability,”  and  “[a]ny  future  non-

conformance  to  rules,  regulations  or  military  standards  will  be  dealt  with  most 
severely.” 
 
On February 8, 1988, the applicant was taken to captain’s mast for having bitten a 
 
fellow seaman on the shoulder on February 2, 1988.  His sentence was restriction to base 
for 30 days and reduction to SR/E-1.  However, the reduction in rate was suspended for 
six months. 
 
 
On February 24, 1988, a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with a “personality 
disorder,  not  otherwise  specified  [with]  dependent  and  passive/aggressive  features.”  
His report indicates that the applicant’s CO had requested the evaluation because of a 
“history of repeated misbehavior.”  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant admitted 
to “the violations cited with the exception of statutory rape, stating ‘I cannot tolerate the 
Coast Guard.’; ‘I’m homesick and need to go back to Texas.’”  The psychiatrist found 
the applicant’s judgment and insight to be poor.  He reported that “[g]iven the nature of 
this individual’s personality structure, the repeated behavioral violations demonstrated 
thus  far  on  active  duty,  and  the  lack  of  motivation  to  improve  his  performance  or  to 
remain  on  active  duty,  it  is  felt  that  further  efforts  to  rehabilitate  or  develop  this 
individual into a satisfactory member of the military will be unsuccessful.” 
 
 
On  March  1,  1988,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  pending  discharge  “for 
unsuitability due to [a] personality disorder.”  The CO stated that he would recommend 
an “honorable” discharge.1  The applicant was notified that he had a right to submit a 
statement  in  his  own  behalf  and  could  consult  with  a  Coast  Guard  attorney.    On  the 
same day, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and indicated that he 
wanted to consult an attorney and make a statement in his own behalf.  
 
 
On March 17, 1988, the applicant submitted a statement concerning his “general 
discharge” to his CO.  He stated that he had valued the training he had received and 
regretted the inconvenience he had caused.  He indicated that he had joined the Coast 
Guard in order to escape his home town upon the dissolution of his parents’ marriage.  
He stated that he realized “it was poor judgment on [his] part to think that joining the 
Coast Guard would eliminate [his] problems.”  He stated that he believed that he had 
been properly punished for his disciplinary infractions at two masts but that the general 
discharge recommended by his CO would be punishing him again for the same infrac-
tions.  He indicated that he wanted to leave the Service and go home. 
 
 
On  March  17,  1988,  the  applicant’s  CO  wrote  to  the  Commandant  requesting 
permission  to  discharge  the  applicant  for  unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder.  
The CO stated that the applicant had “continually displayed disruptive behavior since 
reporting to his first unit.”  He stated that after the applicant’s first week at his first duty 

                                                 
1  In the applicant’s record, there is a question mark after the word “honorable” in the text of the letter. 

station,  the  OIC  told  him  that  the  applicant  would  not  be  a  productive  crewmember 
“because of his belligerent attitude toward authority and his inability to get along with 
anyone on the boat.”  The CO noted that “after several minor incidents,” the applicant 
had  struck  another  member  with  a  telephone  in  December  1988  and,  thereafter,  had 
continued his disruptive behavior.  The CO stated that the applicant had gotten into a 
fight in the barracks on February 2, 1988.  He further stated that although no charges 
had  been  filed,  he  had  “received  information  from  xxxxxxxx,  California,  that  [the 
applicant] had forced unwanted affections on a young high school girl.”   
 

The  CO  attached  to  his  letter  the  report  of  the  psychiatrist  and  the  applicant’s 
own statement.  He noted that the applicant had been notified of his intention and had 
received  legal  counsel  on  March  16,  1988.    The  CO  recommended  that  the  applicant 
receive a general discharge as soon as possible. 
 

On  April  11,  1988,  the  Commandant  authorized  the  CO  to  discharge  the 
applicant by reason of unsuitability with a JMB separation code under Article 12.B.16. of 
the Personnel Manual.  The Commandant ordered that the applicant receive the type of 
discharge (honorable or general) to which he was entitled under Article 12.B.2. of the 
Personnel Manual. 

 
On April 14, 1988, the applicant’s CO vacated the suspension of his reduction to 

E-1, which therefore went into effect. 

 
On May 27, 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged under Article 12.B.16. 
of the Personnel Manual, with an RE-4 reenlistment code, a JMB separation code, and a 
narrative reason for separation of “unsuitability.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On January 12, 2004, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board waive the statute of limitations and 
grant relief by upgrading the applicant’s reenlistment code to RE-3G.  He based this rec-
ommendation on a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel 
Command (CGPC).  
 
 
CGPC stated that the record indicates that the Coast Guard committed no errors 
in discharging the applicant and that the applicant’s “record of dealing with problems 
in a violent and defiant manner was ample justification to separate him with [an RE-4] 
reenlistment code.”   
 

CGPC  noted,  however,  that  the  regulations  in  effect  in  1988  allowed  members 
receiving the JMB separation code to receive either an RE-4 or RE-3G reenlistment code.  
Based  on  the  applicant’s  alleged  success  at  completing  his  education  and  finding  a 

vocation, CGPC stated, it appears that “over the years, the Applicant may have over-
come  the  behavioral  traits  that  led  to  his  separation.”    In  light  of  his  strong  desire  to 
serve his country in the Armed Forces and the fact that his skills could be of service to 
his country, CGPC recommended that the Board upgrade his reenlistment code to RE-
3G, which “does not automatically bar or allow his accession, but will require him to 
fully document and demonstrate to service recruiting authorities that he has overcome 
and resolved the behaviors that led to his separation.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 20, 2004, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  On February 17, 2004, the applicant 
responded, thanking the Board for the “favorable decision” and stating that, as soon as 
the correction is approved, he will start the process for reenlisting in the Navy or Air 
Force Reserves to “put [his] nursing skills to new uses.” 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted person-
nel to be discharged by reason of unsuitability at the direction of the Commandant for 
inaptitude, personality disorders, apathy, defective attitudes, inability to expend effort 
constructively, unsanitary habits, alcohol abuse, financial irresponsibility, or sexual har-
assment.  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  lists  personality  disorders  that 
qualify a member for administrative discharge pursuant to Article 12 of the Personnel 
Manual.  The list includes personality disorders not otherwise specified.  
 
 
Article  12.B.16.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  members  with  less  than 
eight years of service who are being recommended for discharge by reason of unsuit-
ability must (a) be informed in writing of the reason they are being considered for dis-
charge,  (b)  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  make  a  statement  in  writing,  and  (c)  be 
afforded  an  opportunity  to  consult  with  counsel  if  a  less  than  honorable  discharge  is 
contemplated. 
 
 
COMDTINST M1900.4C, the instruction for completing discharge forms in effect 
in  1988,  states  that  a  member’s  DD  214  should  show  a  separation  code,  reenlistment 
code, and narrative reason for separation as stated in the discharge orders issued by the 
Military Personnel Command or as shown in the instruction.  Article 2.C. of the instruc-
tion states that members who are involuntarily discharged because of a personality dis-
order shall be assigned a separation code of JMB, a narrative reason for separation of 
“unsuitability,” and a reenlistment code of RE-4 or RE-3G.  An RE-3G code means the 

discharged member is eligible for reenlistment except for a “condition (not a physical 
disability) interfering with performance of duty.” 
 

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. 

1. 
§ 1552.  
 
2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The record indi-
cates that the applicant signed and received his discharge documents in 1988.  Although 
the applicant stated that he did not discover the allegedly erroneous reenlistment code 
on  his  DD  214  until  March  2003,  the  Board  finds  that  he  either  knew  or  should  have 
known  of  his  non-eligibility  for  reenlistment  in  1988.    Thus,  his  application  was 
untimely. 

 
3. 

The  Board  may  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  if  it  is  in  the 
interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    10  U.S.C.  § 1552(b).    Factors  for  the  Board  to  consider  in 
determining  whether  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations 
include  any  stated  reasons  for  the  delay  and  whether  a  cursory  review  of  the  record 
indicates that there is some merit in the case.  See Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 
1396, 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  The appli-
cant  did  not  explain  why  he  delayed  seeking  an  upgrade  of  his  reenlistment  code. 
However, the Board’s review of the record indicates that the Judge Advocate General 
has recommended granting certain relief.  Therefore, the Board will waive the statute of 
limitations and consider the application on the merits. 

 
4. 

The record indicates that the applicant was habitually uncooperative, dis-
respectful,  and  disruptive  while  serving  in  the  Coast  Guard,  beginning  from  his  first 
week at his first duty station in October 1987.  The record also indicates that the appli-
cant was transferred and counseled many times by his superiors about his behavior and 
that by January 20, 1988, his commanding officer had already decided that he should be 
discharged because of his disruptive behavior.  He was taken to captain’s mast twice for 
fighting.  On February 24, 1988, he was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a psy-
chiatrist, who stated that “further efforts to rehabilitate or develop this individual into a 
satisfactory  member  of  the  military  will  be  unsuccessful.”    Although  the  applicant’s 
commanding officer recommended that he receive a general discharge, he received an 
honorable discharge. 
 

5. 

 
Under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was subject 
to an unsuitability discharge because of his diagnosed personality disorder.  The Board 
notes  that  the  diagnosis  is  supported  in  the  record  by  the  evidence  of  the  applicant’s 
uncooperativeness,  disrespect,  disruptiveness,  and  misconduct.    The  record  indicates 
that the applicant received all due process with respect to his discharge, in accordance 
with Article 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual.  There is no evidence in the record that 
the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in discharging him for unsuitability 
with a JMB separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
 

6. 

Despite the lack of evidence of error or injustice in the record, the Judge 
Advocate General recommended that the applicant’s reenlistment code be upgraded to 
RE-3G, based apparently upon his potential usefulness as a licensed vocational nurse.  
The applicant submitted no evidence of his license or of his employment record.  Nor 
has he submitted any evidence that he has overcome his diagnosed personality disor-
der.    Moreover,  the  applicant’s  allegation  that  he  voluntarily  chose  to  be  discharged 
under  an  “early-out  program”  casts  doubt  on  his  candor  and  credibility  before  the 
Board.  Therefore, despite the Judge Advocate General’s belief that the applicant might 
be  useful  to  a  military  service,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant’s  RE-4 
reenlistment code is erroneous or unjust. 

 
7. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied.    However,  if  the 
applicant submits significant evidence of his alleged vocation, stability of employment, 
and mental health, the Board will grant further consideration.   

  

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 
military  record  is  denied.    However,  if  he  submits  significant  evidence  of  his  alleged 
vocation,  stability  of  employment,  and  mental  health,  the  Board  will  grant  further 
consideration. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

 
 Harold C. Davis, MD 

 
 John M. Dickinson