DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-024 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Ulmer, Chair: 
 
 
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 November 10, 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  July  29,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board "to remove the clause in my honorable discharge."  
The Chair interpreted the applicant's request as one for the removal of "unsuitability-
personality  disorder"  as  the  reason  for  his  1977  discharge.    Unsuitability-personality 
disorder  is  the  only  unfavorable  clause  on  copies  3  and  4  of  the  DD  Form  214.1  The 
                                                 
1 According to Commandant Instruction 1900.4A (Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214 
GG) dated May 14, 1975, the DD Form 214CG consisted of an original (copy 1) with five other copies (2-
6).  The original (copy 1) was given to the member and did not contain the separation code, reenlistment 
code,  or  the  reason  or  authority  for  separation.    For  copy  2,  which  belonged  to  the  service  record,  the 
separation authority and the separation and reenlistment codes were recorded in block 27.  Copies 3 and 
4  contained  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  in  block  27  and  were  to  be  distributed  to  the  Veterans 
Administration  (VA)  and  Selective  Service  System,  if  necessary.    Copy  5  was  completed  in  the  same 
manner as copies 3 and 4 if they were sent to the VA; if copies 3 and 4 were not sent to the VA, copy 5 
was completed in the same manner as the original.  Copy 6 was completed in the same manner as copy 2 
and was sent to the District Commander.   
 

applicant  was  also  given  a  JMB  separation  code  and  a  RE-4    (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment) reenlistment code "(Code JMB, RE-4)", which showed only on copy 2 of 
the DD Form 214.2   

 

APPLICANT'S ALLEGATION 

 
The applicant stated that after his honorable discharge from the Coast Guard he 
 
became  a  firefighter  and  served  in  that  profession  for  23  years.    He  stated  that  he 
recently retired from firefighting and is seeking a new career.   
 
 
The applicant further stated that he discovered the alleged error on December 14, 
1977  and  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  consider  his  application  because  as  a 
firefighter,  he  has  risked  his  life  serving  his  community  and  country.    He  stated  that 
upon his retirement he received many favorable letters from local dignitaries.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY RECORD 

 

The applicant enlisted in the regular Coast Guard on June 14, 1976.   In the fall of 

 
1977, the applicant sought assistance from a chaplain. 
 

On October 20, 1977, the chaplain who counseled the applicant wrote a report to 
which he attached statements that the applicant had written expressing his feelings and 
thoughts.    In  one  letter  dated  October  14,  1977,  the  applicant  expressed  that  he  was 
having marital problems and indicated that getting out of the Coast Guard would give 
him a chance to save his marriage.  He closed the letter with the following comment:  
"Please  don't  make  me  be  one  of  the  people  that  have  to  go  through  hell  and  do 
irrational things, so they don't have to live with a very, very bad mistake."   

 
The Chaplain stated that he referred the applicant to a psychiatrist for additional 

counseling.  As background, the chaplain reported the following: 
 

On September 28, 1977, [the applicant] came to visit the Chaplain's office 
as a walk-in (he appeared to be confused, frightened, depressed, and very 
nervous). [The applicant] said that he must get out of the Coast Guard to 
save his own sanity.  [The applicant] feels very strongly that if he should 
stay in he would have a nervous breakdown.  He stated that he has lost all 
respect for the military and does not feel anything for it.  He said that he 
must  get  out  and  hoped  that  the  military  would  not  force  him  to  go 
AWOL  or  resort  to  something  drastic  .  .  .    [The  applicant]  feels  that  the 
Coast Guard is also forcing he and his wife to separate, because of all of its 

                                                 
2  The Board normally reviews the appropriateness of the reenlistment code when it considers modifying 
the reason for discharge. 

demands  placed  upon  him  as  a  military  husband.    [The  applicant]  said 
that if he [doesn't] get out of the service [his wife] would leave him . . .    

 
On October 6, 1977,  a psychiatrist evaluated the applicant and diagnosed him as 
 
suffering  from  a  Schizoid  personality.    The  clinical  psychiatric  examination  was 
reported as follows: 
 

Clinical psychiatric examination reveals a man who appears borderline in 
his functioning emotionally with some schizoid personality features.  This 
man definitely appears to have the potential of breaking down completely 
under stress and becoming schizophrenic if he were to have to continue in 
the type of high pressure and stressful situation that military life is.  He 
has also written some things, which again highlight the fact that he seems 
to be verging on a nervous breakdown.  The man does state that before he 
breaks down completely he will probably go AWOL.  It would be both in 
this man's and the Coast Guard's interest to allow him to be discharged on 
an  administrative  12-B-16  discharge  since  it  is  evident  clinically  that  he 
will probably not be able to continue to cope with the stresses of military 
life and if forced to stay in the service [he] will either go AWOL or have a 
complete breakdown of his personality disturbance and possibly become 
schizophrenic.  . . .   
 
RECOMMENDATION:    1.    Because  the  patient  suffers  from  a  primary 
inherent  personality  defect,  which  is  not  secondary  to  any  disease  or 
injury and existed prior to entrance into the Coast Guard, he is at present 
unsuitable for further military service.   
 
 
2.  There is no disqualifying physical or mental 
defects which are ratable as a disability under the standard schedule for 
rating disabilities in current use by the Veterans Administration. 

 

 

 

 
 
On  November  2,  1977,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  his  commanding  officer 
(CO)  was  contemplating  asking  the  Commandant  for  authority  to  administratively 
discharge  the  applicant  due  to  a  personality  disorder.  On  November  2,  1977,  the 
applicant  acknowledged  receiving  the  notification  of  proposed  discharge  and 
counseling  about  the  meaning  and  effect  of  an  unsuitability  discharge.    He  also 
acknowledged that he had five working days in which to make a statement in his own 
behalf.   
 
 
On November 22, 1977, the CO recommended that the Commandant direct the 
applicant's discharge by reason of unsuitability.  The CO stated that the applicant was 
having domestic problems that began prior to reporting to the command and that the 
applicant  and  his  wife  had  been  separated  but  reunited  just  prior  to  the  applicant's 

attendance  at  "A"  school.    He  informed  the  Commandant  about  the  applicant's  self-
referral to the chaplain and about the psychiatric evaluation.  He further stated that the 
applicant had been to non-judicial punishment for being on unauthorized absence for 
approximately 7 days and that the applicant had been disenrolled from "A" school on 
November 3, 1977.   He further stated the following: 
 

[The applicant] is in complete emotional turmoil.  He cannot, partially due 
to  his  marital  situation,  cope  with  the  military  environment.    [The 
applicant] at this time is trying hard to avoid further disciplinary action.  
However, I am of the opinion that he is able to do so merely because he 
believes that he will be separated soon.  I strongly agree with the medical 
officer  that  the  applicant  is  unsuitable  for  military  service  due  to  a 
personality disorder.  I recommend that [the applicant] be discharged as 
soon  as  possible  because  each  day  becomes  more  stressful  to  him  and 
could result in either a complete nervous breakdown, injury to himself or 
other persons, or at the least further unauthorized absences.   

 
 
On November 9, 1977, the applicant acknowledged in  a statement that he fully 
understood the actions contemplated in the CO's letter of November 8, 1977.  He stated 
that he was under a great deal of strain and found it difficult to adjust to military life.  
He stated that he hoped prompt action would be taken to discharge him from the Coast 
Guard.   
 
 
the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability. 
 

On December 6, 1977, the Commandant approved the applicant's discharge from 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  March  30,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request. 
 

In  recommending  denial  of  relief,  TJAG  argued  that  the  application  was 
untimely.    He  stated  that  applications  for  correction of  military records  must  be  filed 
within three years of the date the alleged error or injustice was, or should have been, 
discovered.    33  CFR  §  52.22.    He  said  that  the  Board  could  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations and consider the case, if the applicant presents sufficient evidence that it is 
in the interest of justice to do so.  As TJAG argued, the length of the delay, the reasons 
for the delay, and the likelihood of the applicant's success on the merits of his claim are 
factors to be considered in deciding whether to waive the statute of limitations.  
 

TJAG stated that the applicant filed his application more than 20 years beyond 
the  statute  of  limitations,  despite  becoming  aware  of  the  alleged  error  as  early  as 

December 1977.  He stated that the applicant failed to offer any justification whatsoever 
for  failing  to  pursue  the  matter  earlier.    Moreover,  He  stated  that  the  applicant  was 
properly discharged from the Coast Guard due to a pre-existing condition, for which he 
actively  sought  discharge  from  the  service. 
  TJAG  noted  that  the  applicant 
acknowledged in writing that he understood the ground on which he was discharged.   
 

TJAG stated that the applicant offered no evidence to support his claim that his 
DD Form 214 was improperly prepared.   He further 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).  
Moreover, the applicant bears the burden of proving error.  33 C.F.R. § 52.24.  He stated 
that the applicant fails to offer adequate evidence that the Coast Guard committed any 
error  or  injustice,  other  than  his  assertion  that  his  DD  Form  214  contained  erroneous 
information.   

 
A  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) was attached as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion. He stated the following 
with respect to the preparation of the applicant's DD Form 214: 

 
[I]n  pursuing  .  .  .  career  opportunities,  the  Applicant  may  experience 
embarrassment  if  he  must  present  his  DD-214  to  prospective  employers 
(Although I presume that this did not ultimately impact his ability to gain 
employment as a firefighter).  However, with no evidence that the reason 
for the Applicant's discharge was erroneous or that he was deprived of his 
right to due process while being separated, I cannot support the request to 
change his record.  It appears that at the time of the Applicant's discharge, 
instructions  for  completing  the  DD  Form  214  required  that  certain 
remarks would only be entered on certain copies of the Form.  Copy 2 of 
the applicant's DD-214 is different than copies 3 and 4, but all are official 
and valid.  It appears that the Applicant has a copy of the version of the 
form similar to copies 3 and 4, which specifically indicates his separation 
for unsuitability was due to a personality disorder, whereas copy [2] only 
cites the article from the Personnel Manual that authorizes the separation, 
and  his  separation  code.    [The  applicant]  should  be  provided  copies  of 
both  versions,  because  they  are  both  valid.    He  can  decide  for  himself 
which version he chooses to provide to prospective employers and other 
interested persons.      
 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On April 1, 2004, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
 
applicant for his reply.  The letter was returned to the Board marked "Return to Sender 
No Forward[ing] Order on File Unable to Forward Return to Sender".  A second letter 

was sent to the applicant using a slightly different address, but it was also returned to 
the BCMR.      
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Coast Guard Personnel Manual (CG-207) 
 
 
Article  12-B-16  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1977  stated  that  only  the 
Commandant shall direct the discharge of enlisted personnel by reason of unsuitability 
and  that  such  discharges  are  effected  to  free  the  service  of  persons  considered 
unsuitable  for  further  service.    This  article  further  authorized  discharge  by  reason 
unsuitability  due  to  personality  disorder  "as  determined  by  medical  authority, 
personality  behavior  disorders  and  disorders  of  intelligence  listed  in  Chapter  5,  CG 
Medical Manual (CG-294)."  
 
 
Article 12-B-16 (d)(1)(2)(3) stated that the person concerned shall be informed of 
the contemplated action, and the reasons therefore, and shall be given the opportunity 
to  make  any  statement  in  his  own  behalf.    If  a  member  does  not  desire  to  make  a 
statement, he shall set forth such fact in writing over his signature and it shall constitute 
his statement.  
 
 
This  Article  further  provided  in  Article  12-B-16  (h)(2)  that  when  psychiatric 
considerations are involved, the medical officer should be a psychiatrist when available.   
 
COMMANDANT  INSTRUCTION  1900.4A  (Report  of  Separation  from  Active  Duty,  DD 
Form 214 GG) dated May 14, 19753 
 
 
reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder and a RE-4 reenlistment code.  
 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 
 
Under  the  SPD  Handbook  in  effect  today,  a  person  discharged  by  reason  of 
personality disorder could receive either an RE-4 or an RE-3G (condition (not physical 
disability) interfering with the performance of duty).  
  

Section D. of Enclosure (2) authorized a JMB separation code for a discharge by 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 

                                                 
3   The Board believes that this was the Commandant Instruction in effect at the time of the applicant's 
discharge for the preparation of the DD Form 214 because the Board has no knowledge of a superseding 
instruction between May 14, 1975 and December 14, 1977. 

1.  The  Board  has  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  issues  in  this  proceeding         

submissions of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, 
and applicable law: 
 
 
under section 1552 of title 10, United States Code.  
 
 
2.    The  applicant  asked  the  Board  "to  remove  the  clause  in  my  honorable 
discharge."    The  Board  interprets  this  as  a  request  for  the  removal  of  "unsuitability-
personality disorder" as the reason for the applicant's discharge as this is the only clause 
on copies 3 and 4 of the DD Form 214 that could be considered unfavorable.  The Board 
normally  considers  the  appropriateness  of  the  reenlistment  code  when  deciding 
whether to upgrade the reason for separation and will do so in this case. 
  
3.  The application was not timely.   To be timely, an application for correction of 
 
a military record must be submitted within three years after the applicant discovered or 
should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.      This 
application was submitted more than 20 years beyond the statute of limitations.   
 
 
4.  The Board may still consider the application on the merits, however, if it finds 
it is in the interest of justice to do so.  The interest of justice is determined by taking into 
consideration the reasons for and the length of the delay and the likelihood of success 
on the merits of the claim. See, Dickson v.  Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.D.C. 
1995).  It is clear from the record that the applicant was aware of this error in December 
1977.    He  stated  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  waive  the 
statute limitations because of his post-service employment as a firefighter, from which 
he  recently  retired.    While  the  applicant's  reasons  for  waiving  the  statute  are  not 
persuasive, it appears that he may be entitled to have his reenlistment code upgraded.  
Accordingly, it is in the interest of justice to consider this case on the merits. 
 
 
5.    The  applicant  has  not  presented  any  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed any error or injustice by discharging him from the Coast Guard by reason of 
unsuitability due to a personality disorder. He was diagnosed as having a personality 
disorder by a psychiatrist, as required by regulation.  In addition, the applicant does not 
deny that he suffered from a personality disorder at the time; nor does he deny that he 
insisted on being discharged from the Coast Guard because military life placed him, as 
well as his marriage, under severe stress.  
 
6. The applicant's RE-4 reenlistment code should be upgraded.   The RE-4, which 
 
is  a  recommendation  against  enlistment, 
inconsistent  with  the  applicant's 
performance  record  and  the  lack  of  any  disciplinary  problems,  except  for  one  minor 
infraction. The Board notes that in 1977 COMDTINST M1900.4A authorized only an RE-
4 reenlistment code for separation by reason of personality disorder.  However, under 
today's standards either an RE-3G or an RE-4 is authorized for discharge by reason of 

is 

personality  disorder.    In  Docket  No.  2004-015,  the  Board  upgraded  that  applicant's 
reenlistment  code  from  RE-4  to  RE-3C  noting  the  more  favorable  reenlistment  code 
under  today's  regulation,  noting  that  applicant's  lack  of  any  serious  disciplinary 
problems, and noting his favorable performance. Applying the reasoning in BCMR No. 
2004-015 to this case, the Board finds that RE-3G is the more appropriate reenlistment 
code for this applicant's situation.  
 
 
8.  TJAG recommended, and the Board agrees, that copies of each copy of the DD 
Form 214 currently in the applicant's record should be sent to him, as copy 2 is slightly 
different  from  copies  3  and  4.      The  regulation  in  effect  at  the  time  required  that  six 
copies  (the  original  and  five  other  copies)  of  the  DD  Form  214  be  prepared.    Some 
copies  were  prepared  in  slightly  differently  depending  on  the  intended  purpose.  
However,  as  best  as  the  Board  can  determine,  each  was  prepared  according  to  the 
regulation in effect at that time and the applicant has not maintained otherwise.     
 
 
above. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

9.    Accordingly,  the  applicant  should  be  granted  the  limited  relief  discussed 

[SIGNATURES AND ORDER ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is granted in limited part.  His record, including the DD Form 214 (copy 
2), shall be corrected to show RE-3G as his reenlistment code.  After this correction is 
made, a copy of each copy of the DD Form 214 in the applicant's military record shall be 
sent to the applicant.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 
 James G. Parks 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Harold C. Davis, MD