DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2003-151 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed on September 29, 2003, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application 
and military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  10,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  upgrading  his 
RE-3L (eligible for reenlistment, except for disqualifying factor: entry level performance 
and conduct separation due to inability to adopt to the military) reenlistment code to an 
RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that although in 2001 the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
upgraded his 1993 RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment) code to RE-3L, it is still not high 
enough  to  allow  him  to  enlist  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve.    He  asked  this  Board  to 
upgrade the RE-3L to an RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  June  22,  1993  for  four  years  and 
 
reported for recruit training the same day.  Approximately two days later, on June 24, 
1993, he was observed by an HS2 banging his head against a bulkhead.  The applicant 

 

 

the  applicant  was 

  The  psychologist's  diagnosis  of 

was referred to the staff psychologist, who stated that the applicant refused to cooperate 
with the interview except to say that he was thinking of hurting himself and that he was 
crazy. 
to  rule  out 
passive/aggressive  personality  disorder  with  histrionic  traits.    He  admitted  the 
applicant to the ward for 24 hours and placed him on "live watch suicide precaution".   
The applicant was discharged from the ward on June 25, 1993.  
 
 
The  psychologist  treated  the  applicant  for  the  second  time  on  July  1,  1993,  for 
verbalization  of  suicidal  ideation.    According  to  the  medical  note,  the  applicant  was 
angry  because  he  believed  the  recruiter  provided  him  with  misinformation.    The 
applicant  stated  that  the  recruiter  was  supposed  to  give  him  information  about 
applying  to  OCS  (officer  candidate  school),  but  the  recruiter  never  did.    The 
psychologist found the applicant's mental status to be unremarkable and diagnosed the 
applicant with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and the need to rule 
out passive/aggressive personality disorder.     
 
 
On July 2, 1993, the psychologist again evaluated the applicant.  At this meeting 
the applicant restated his desire to be discharged and threatened to act out in a way that 
would result in his separation from the Coast Guard.  The psychologist's note stated the 
following:  
 

[The applicant] says he left the psychologist's office yesterday and went to 
the barracks and "couldn't take it" and took a fan cord and wrapped [it] 
around his neck.  This is however not seen as a suicide attempt.  This is 
clinically interpreted as a manipulative gesture [with] the very conscious 
goal to avoid training and subsequent service in the Coast Guard.  

 
The psychologist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from malingering and the need to 
rule out passive/aggressive personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.   
 
The applicant signed a medical entry stating, "If placed in DHE today, [with] the 
 
expected  recommendation  of  discharge  from  the  USCG,  I  will  not  act  out  or  perform 
any suicidal gestures." 
 
 
On July 6, 1993, the psychologist and the applicant's treating physician advised 
the applicant that a recruit evaluation board would be held to determine whether the 
applicant should be discharged.  The recruit evaluation board met and recommended 
that the applicant be discharged due to malingering and gingivitis, which existed prior 
to his enlistment.   
 
On July 8, 1993, the applicant was notified that he would be discharged with a 
 
general  discharge,  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  inaptitude,  with  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code.  The applicant signed a statement acknowledging the discharge, and 

On  July  9,  1993,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  in 

expressing  his  decision  not  to  consult  an  attorney  or  to  write  a  statement  in  his  own 
behalf.   
 
 
accordance with Article 12.B.16. (unsuitability/inaptitude) of the Personnel Manual.  
 
 
 
  
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB)  
 
On  March  28,  2001,  the  Commandant  approved  the  DRB's  recommendation  to 
 
change the character of the applicant's discharge from general to uncharacterized, his 
RE-4 reenlistment code to an RE-3L, his separation code to JGA, and the reason for his 
discharge to Entry Level Performance and Separation.  In recommending relief for the 
applicant, the DRB concluded that although the character and reason for the applicant's 
1993 separation were appropriate and proper, they were not equitable.  The DRB stated, 
"boot camp failures today are given Uncharacterized Discharge, under the authority of 
the 12.B.20 [of the Personnel Manual]."   
 
Current Evidence Submitted by the Applicant 
 
The  applicant  submitted  a  recent  letter  from  a  psychologist  who  evaluated  the 
 
applicant on September 20 and 26, 2002.  She stated that the applicant exhibited "a few 
traits  of  the  cluster  C  (avoidant,  dependent,  obsessive  compulsive,  and  passive 
aggressive) personality.  . . .  The behaviors exhibited by [the applicant] while in basic 
training are reminiscent of the anxious, resistive submissiveness typical of the cluster C 
personality."  She stated that alternatively, these behaviors may have merely reflected 
the poor coping skills of a young man who found himself in an emotionally threatening 
situation.    "At  any  rate,  at  this  time,  I  do  not  see  in  [the  applicant's]  personality 
characteristics that are sufficient in number or intensity to meet the diagnostic criteria 
for any personality disorder."  The psychologist further stated the following: 
 

Of greater concern to me are the events of 2000.  It is my impression that 
the  patient  suffered  a  psychotic  break  in  2000  at  a  time  when  he  felt 
overwhelmed and unable to cope . . . [T]hat year he suffered the loss of his 
sister,  the  threatened  loss  of  his  father,  and  the  relationship  with  his 
mother  was  not  one  from  which  he  could  derive  emotional  support. 
Having  experienced  this  psychological  episode  [the  applicant]  could 
appropriately  be  diagnosed  with  schizophreniform  disorder,  with  good 
prognostic  features.    This  diagnosis  may  be  given  when  a  person 
experienced at some time in his history a psychotic episode of more than 

one month but less than six months duration, from which that person has 
already  recovered.    Symptoms  come  on  quickly  and  leave  quickly;  this 
appears  to  have  been  the  case  with  [the  applicant].    Currently,  the 
depersonalization,  ideal  of  reference,  and  auditory  hallucinations  that 
occurred  for  several  months  in  2000  are  not  present  in  [the  applicant's] 
profile.   
 
[The  applicant]  demonstrates  a  lot  of  strengths,  including  determination 
and  perseverance,  willingness  to  work,  the  absence  of  any  proclivity 
toward violence, criminal activity, or substance abuse, and apparent good 
physical health.  . . .  
 
I have described [the applicant's] psychiatric history and discussed what I 
see  as  his  current  emotional  problems.    In  spite  of  some  significant 
historical  pathology  and  some  remaining  mental  health  issues,  I  believe 
his prognosis is good, and I do not see anything in the current picture that 
would  prevent  him  from  effectively  serving  in  the  Unites  States  Coast 
Guard Reserve.   Based on currently available information, [the applicant] 
shows a promising potential to be able to function adequately in the Coast  
Guard or most any other career path he should select.   
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  numerous  statements  from  his  family, 
friends, and employers, attesting to his character and excellent work and school 
habits. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On February 25, 2004, the Judge Advocate (TJAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    He 
stated  that  the  applicant  failed  to  carry  his  burden  proving  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed an error or injustice in this case. 

 
TJAG 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  in  this  case  the  applicant 
offered  no  proof  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice,  and  that  the 
applicant's own submissions shows that the applicant still has significant mental health 
issues that should be carefully considered before any armed force enlists him.  

 
TJAG stated that the Coast Guard acted appropriately in assigning the applicant 
an RE-3L reenlistment code, which does not prohibit the applicant's service in another 
branch  of  the  armed  forces.    The  RE-3L  places  any  potential  recruiter  on  notice  to 
inquire  in  to  the  circumstances  of  the  applicant's  entry-level  separation.    TJAG  stated 

that  to  change  the  applicant's  entry-level  separation  to  an  RE-1  would  not  only  be 
contrary  to  Coast  Guard  regulations  and  procedures,  but  could  actually  create  a 
situation  dangerous  to  both  the  applicant  and  those  serving  along  side  him.    TJAG 
stated  that  the  applicant's  package  raises  serious  questions  concerning  his  ability  to 
function  adequately  in  stressful  environments.    "Enlisting  him  without  appropriate 
inquiry into this area would be unfair to both applicant and the service involved and 
runs the risk of creating, rather than correcting, injustice."   
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 1, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article 12.B.20.a. of the Personnel Manual defines an uncharacterized discharge 
as a separation for members who have fewer than 180 days of active service on the date 
of discharge and who demonstrate poor proficiency, conduct, aptitude or unsuitability 
for further service during the period from enlistment through recruit training.  It also 
authorizes entry-level separations for members who "exhibit minor pre-existing medical 
issues not of a disabling nature which do not meet the medical/physical procurement 
standards in place for entry into the Service."      
 
 
awarded an uncharacterized discharge. Only a DD-214 will be issued." 
 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 
 
The  SPD  Handbook  states  that  an  entry  level  performance  and  conduct 
separation code is assigned when a member shows an inability, lack of effort, or failure 
to adopt to the military, or when there are minor disciplinary infractions during the first 
180  days  of  active  military  service.    The  SPD  Handbook  does  not  authorize  an  RE-1 
reenlistment code for a discharge by reason of entry-level performance and conduct.  It 
only authorizes an RE-3L.   
 

Article  12.B.20.c.  states,  "No  discharge  certificate  will  be  issued  to  a  member 

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 
applicable law: 

 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10 
United States Code.  The application was timely.  An applicant has fifteen years from 
the date of discharge to apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of 
his  discharge.    The  applicant  applied  to  the  DRB  approximately  seven  years  after  his 
discharge, and the DRB issued a final decision on March 28, 2001.  According to Ortiz v. 
Secretary of Defense,  41 F. 3rd. 738 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the BCMR's  three year statute of 
limitations begins to run at the conclusion of DRB proceedings. Under 33 CFR § 52.13, 
the applicant was required to exhaust his administrative remedies by applying to the 
DRB.  Therefore, the applicant's BCMR application, received by the Board on August 18, 
2003, was timely. 

 
2.    The  applicant  was  discharged  on  July  9,  1993,  with  a  general  discharge,  by 
reason  of  unsuitability  (inaptitude),  with  a  JMD  separation  code,  and  an  RE-4 
reenlistment  code.    On  March  23,  2001,  the  Commandant,  on  recommendation  of  the 
DRB, changed the character of the applicant's discharge to uncharacterized, the reason 
for his discharge to entry level performance and conduct with the corresponding JGA 
separation code, and his reenlistment code to RE-3L (eligible for reenlistment, except for 
disqualifying  factor:  entry  level  performance  and  conduct).      The  applicant  asked  the 
BCMR  to  upgrade  the  RE-3L  to  an  RE-1  so  that  he  will  be  eligible  to  reenlist  in  the 
reserve without a waiver.   
 

3.    After  reviewing  the  Personnel  Manual  and  the  SPD  Handbook,  the  Board 
finds  that  an  “uncharacterized  discharge”  by  reason  of  entry-level  performance  and 
conduct  is  the  most  accurate  description  of  the  applicant's  service  at  the  time  of  his 
discharge.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Board considered the applicant's refusal to 
participate in recruit training, his demand to be separated from the Coast Guard, and 
the  fact  that  he  served  on  active  duty  for  only  18  days.    His  discharge  pursuant  to 
Article 12.B.20 of the Personnel Manual was appropriate.   

 
4.  The  SPD  Handbook  authorizes  only  an  RE-3L  reenlistment  code  for  a 
separation  due  to  entry-level  performance  and  conduct  under  Article  12.B.20.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.  The  RE-3L  reenlistment  code  does  not  prevent  the  applicant's 
reenlistment,  but  requires  him  to  obtain  a  waiver  to  do  so.    The  applicant's  recent 
psychological  evaluation,  which  he  submitted,  supports  the  Commandant's  decision 
that the applicant should only be able to enlist in the military after he has demonstrated 
to the satisfaction of appropriate authorities that he is mentally and physically suitable 
for military service.  Moreover, the 18 days the applicant spent on active duty was an 
insufficient amount of time on which to judge whether he should be recommended for 
reenlistment without any restrictions.   
 

5.  The Board finds no error or injustice in the assignment of the applicant's RE-

3L reenlistment code.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Audrey Roh 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer