DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-044 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy 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 BCMR docketed this 
case on December 22, 2003, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  dental  technician  (pay  grade  E-4)  in  the  Coast  Guard, 
 
asked the Board to correct his military record by upgrading his reenlistment code from 
RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) to RE-1 (eligible).  He also alleged that the narrative reason 
for separation on his August 1, 1977, discharge form, DD 214, is  erroneous in that he 
should have been discharged for “hardship” rather than “unsuitability.”  The applicant 
is a minister who wishes to become a chaplain for the Navy Reserve. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY RECORD 

 

On  February  8,  1971,  at  the  age  of  17  years,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Air 
Force.  On October 14, 1972, the applicant married.  His wife was then 16 years old.  On 
April 1, 1973, their son was born.  After advancing to the rate of sergeant, pay grade E-4, 
the  applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  into  the  Air  Force  Reserve  with  an 
“honorable” character of service on May 31, 1974.  His Air Force DD 214 indicates that 
he  had  spent  more  than  two  years  overseas  and  received  various  Vietnam  campaign 
medals  and  a  Good  Conduct  Award.    His  performance  evaluations  describe  his  per-

formance as “commendable,” “highly satisfactory,” and “exceptional.”  At the time of 
his release, he had been recommended for promotion to staff sergeant. 

 
The applicant’s Coast Guard enlistment application indicates that, upon leaving 
the  Air  Force,  he  worked  for  a  municipal  fire  department  from  July  1974  to  January 
1975.  He left that job with the intention of going to college, but then worked for a fiber 
company from September 1975 until he joined the Coast Guard. 
 
 
On  March  1,  1976,  at  age  22,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  in  pay 
grade  E-3.    Upon  completing  boot  camp,  he  was  enrolled  in  “A”  School  to  become  a 
dental technician.  On November 24, 1976, he graduated from “A” School, ranked third 
in his class.  He was advanced to DT3/pay grade E-4 and transferred to xxxxxxxxxxx, 
which was his first assignment preference. 
 
 
On May 2, 1977, a psychiatrist prepared a report on the applicant.  He stated that 
the applicant had been referred for a psychiatric evaluation by the senior dental officer, 
Capt. X, “because of a four month history of poor work performance accompanied by 
preoccupation,  social  isolation,  and  apparent  depression  over  family  and  job  issues.”  
The psychiatrist noted that the applicant had been seen “as a self-referral” on April 18, 
and 21, 1977.  He reported that the applicant had disliked the Air Force, had held only 
short-term jobs thereafter, and had joined the Coast Guard on an impulse.  He stated 
that the applicant’s work as a DT3 had “slowed to a ‘snail’s pace’” and that “[o]ver the 
past year, his wife has developed ulcerative colitis and he is quite guilty over how much 
his own depression and irritability have contributed to her physical worsening.”  The 
psychiatrist reported that the applicant was “an alert, cooperative passive, non-sponta-
neous  young  man.    His  motor  behavior  is  somewhat  slowed  and  he  seems  generally 
unanimated.  He appears moderately depressed and describes his mood as one of frus-
tration  and  sadness.    There  are  no  delusions  or  hallucinations.    Orientation,  memory 
and  general  cognitive  functioning  appear  intact.”    He  diagnosed  the  applicant  with 
“Adjustment  Reaction  of  adult  life  in  an  underlying  inadequate  personality.  (307.3)”1  
The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be administratively discharged. 

                                                 
1 “Adjustment Reaction of adult life” (307.3) is an old diagnosis from the second edition of the  American 
Psychiatric Association’S Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II), which is no longer 
used.  According to the Textbook of Military Medicine, “Adjustment Reaction of adult life” was a diagnosis 
of a stress reaction and fell under the category of Transient Situational Disturbances.  It was “reserved for 
more or less transient disorders of any severity (including those of psychotic proportions) that occur in 
individuals without any apparent underlying mental disorders and that represent an acute reaction from 
overwhelming environmental stress. … If the patient has good adaptive capacity, his symptoms usually 
recede  as  the  stress  diminishes.”    Zajtchuk,  Russ,  series  ed.,  TEXTBOOK  OF  MILITARY  MEDICINE,  Jones, 
Franklin  D.,  et  al.,  eds.,  War  Psychiatry,  Jones,  Franklin  D.,  “Chronic  Post-Traumatic  Stress  Disorder” 
(Office of the Surgeon General, United States Army, 1995), pp. 411-13.  Under DSM-III, published in 1980, 
the diagnosis “Adjustment Reaction of adult life” was divided between various adjustment disorders and 
the more severe post-traumatic stress disorder.  Id. p. 413.  Adjustment disorders are defined as psycho-
logical responses to identifiable stressors that result in the development of clinically significant emotional 

 
 
On June 7, 1977, the psychiatrist wrote an addendum to his report, stating that 
the  applicant  had  been  seen  weekly  for  psychotherapy  and  that  his  condition  had 
deteriorated in that he had “continued to withdraw in his work environment “ and his 
“marital  problems  have  remained  essentially  unabated.”    However,  aside  from  the 
psychiatrist’s report and addendum, the only medical records in the applicant’s record 
are for ordinary illnesses, such as a sore throat on January 26, 1977; a finger that was 
“jammed”  while  he was playing volleyball  on March 1, 1977; and an ear infection on 
April 14, 1977.  
 
On June 23, 1977, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) asked the Comman-
 
dant for authority to discharge the applicant “by reason of unsuitability due to person-
ality disorder.”2  The CO stated in his letter that the applicant had been referred by his 
division officer for a psychiatric evaluation on April 26, 1977, because of “a four month 
history of poor work performance accompanied by preoccupation, social isolation, and 
apparent depression.”  The CO also stated that the applicant had been notified in writ-
ing of the basis for the proposed discharge and had acknowledged receipt of it, but had 
declined to make a statement in his own behalf.  The CO listed the psychiatrist’s report 
and  addendum  and  the  applicant’s  acknowledgment  of  the  proposed  discharge  as 
attachments to the letter, but the applicant’s acknowledgment is not in the record. 
 
 
On June 30, 1977, the applicant received marks of 2.4 (out of 4.0) for proficiency 
and leadership and 4.0 for conduct on a performance evaluation.  There are no adminis-
trative  entries  in  the  applicant’s  record  that  document  any  performance  or  conduct 
problems or any dissatisfaction by his command. 
 

On August 1, 1977, the applicant was honorably discharged.  The blocks on his 
DD  214  where  the  reason  and  legal  authority  for  his  discharge  and  his  reenlistment 
code would normally appear have no entries and are struck through.  Block 22 indicates 
                                                                                                                                                             
or  behavioral  symptoms.    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. 
2  A  “personality  disorder”  is  “an  enduring  pattern  of  inner  experience  and  behavior  that  deviates 
markedly  from  the  expectations  of  the  individual’s  culture,  is  pervasive  and  inflexible,  has  an  onset  in 
adolescence  or  early  adulthood,  is  stable  over  time,  and  leads  to  distress  or  impairment.”    American 
Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC  AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, 
TEXT  REVISION  (2000)  (DSM-IV-TR),  p.  685.    Types  of  personality  disorders  include  paranoid,  schizoid, 
schizotypal,  antisocial,  borderline,  histrionic,  narcissistic,  avoidant,  dependent,  and  obsessive-compul-
sive.    Id.    “The  diagnosis  of  Personality  Disorders  requires  an  evaluation  of  the  individual’s  long-term 
patterns of functioning … .  The personality traits that define these disorders must also be distinguished 
from  characteristics  that  emerge  in  response  to  specific  situational  stressors  or  more  transient  mental 
states  …  .    The  clinician  should  assess  the  stability  of  personality  traits  over  time  and  across  different 
situations.”  Id. at 686.  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. 

that he had 19 days of accrued leave at the time of his discharge.  On the same day, his 
CO  gave  him  a  letter  stating  that  his  narrative  reason  for  separation,  authority  for 
separation, and reenlistment code would be provided to him on a separate document 
upon his request and that if he requested such a document, it would be included in his 
official  military  record.    There  is  no  indication  in  the  record  of  whether the  applicant 
requested this document, although he acknowledged receiving the letter from this CO, 
and there is no such document in his military record.  However, a Service Record Card 
(form  CGHQ-3299)  in  his  record  shows  that  he  was  honorably  discharged  for 
unsuitability under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual with separation code JMB, 
which denoted an involuntary discharge for unsuitability due to a disorder of character 
or behavior. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that after he enlisted in the Coast Guard on March 1, 1976, 
his  wife  became  very  ill,  but  the  medical  clinic  at  the  training  center  was  unable  to 
determine what was wrong with her.  He alleged that he continued to work hard, suc-
cessfully completed training as a dental technician, and received excellent performance 
evaluations.  However, his wife’s health continued to deteriorate after training, when he 
received transfer orders to serve at a dental clinic in xxxxxxxxx.  Therefore, rather than 
moving  with  him,  she  moved  with  their  two-year-old  son  to  her  parents’  house  in 
xxxxxxxxx.  A few weeks later, he took leave to bring her to xxxxxxx.  After her arrival 
in xxxxxxxxx, she was soon admitted to the critical care unit of a hospital.  She stayed in 
the hospital for three weeks and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.3 
 
 
The applicant stated that while his wife was hospitalized, he had to stay home 
with his son because they were new to the area and had no friends or family and no 
child care resources or finances to pay for it.  The applicant alleged that after his wife 
was released from the hospital, his section chief at the clinic was not understanding of 
his circumstances and refused to allow him sufficient time off to provide the continuing 
support  his  wife  and  son  needed,  even  though  he  had  accumulated  annual  leave  he 
could  have  taken.    He  asked  the  section  chief  for  a  compassionate  reassignment  to 
xxxxxxxxxxxx, where his wife’s family could help them, but the chief became angry and 
said he would never agree to a transfer and that any “paperwork would not go past his 
                                                 
3  Medical records submitted by the applicant confirm this information.  Ulcerative colitis is a “chronic, 
recurrent ulceration in the colon … of unknown cause; it is manifested clinically by cramping abdominal 
pain,  rectal  bleeding,  and  loose  discharges  of  blood,  pus,  and  mucus  with  scanty  fecal  particles.  
Complications  include  hemorrhoids,  abscesses,  fistulas,  perforation  of  the  colon,  pseudopolyps,  and 
carcinoma.”  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 29TH ED. (2000), p. 376.  Like Crohn’s disease, 
ulcerative colitis is a major type of inflammatory bowel disease.  Braunwald, E., et al., eds., HARRISON’S 
PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERNAL  MEDICINE,  15th  ed.  (McGraw-Hill,  2001),  p.  1679.    Severe  ulcerative  colitis  is 
characterized by at least six bowel  movements per day, a significant amount of blood in the stool, and 
spontaneous  ulcerations  and  bleeding  of  the  rectum  and  colon.    Other  symptoms  include  nausea, 
vomiting, fever, and weight loss.  Id. at 1682 

desk.”  The applicant alleged that the section chief gave the same reply when he asked 
for  a  hardship  discharge.    He  stated  that  his  section  chief  threatened  him  with 
disciplinary action if he tried to bypass the section chief to get a reassignment or hard-
ship discharge.  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  base  medical  officer,  a  captain,  tried  to  intervene 
with his section chief to no avail.  The captain therefore asked a lieutenant commander 
who was a psychiatrist to help the applicant.  The applicant alleged that he met with the 
psychiatrist only for about 15 minutes on April 18, 1977, and for about 20 minutes on 
April 21, 1977.  The psychiatrist told the applicant that he could write to Coast Guard 
Headquarters on the applicant’s behalf, but that the applicant should not get his hopes 
up because it was unlikely that Headquarters would agree to discharge someone with 
an excellent service record.  The applicant stated that he really did not want to be dis-
charged but felt that he had no other choice, so he asked the psychiatrist to write the 
letter to Headquarters.   
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  report  the  psychiatrist  wrote  for  him  was  an 
“attempt at helping me receive an honorable discharge” and was not based on a proper 
psychiatric  evaluation.    He  stated  that,  contrary  to  what  the  psychiatrist  reported,  he 
had enjoyed his time in the Air Force.  He stated that although he held several jobs —
most of them part-time—in the two years between his release from the Air Force and 
his enlistment in the  Coast Guard, he was  never fired from any  of them and had left 
them because none of them had potential as a career that could support his family.   He 
alleged  that  he  never  complained  to  the  psychiatrist  about  depression  or  about  any 
marital problems other than his wife’s ulcerative colitis.  He alleged that he enjoyed his 
work as a DT3 and got along well with his colleagues, except for his supervisor, who 
refused to let him take more leave.  He pointed out that his work might have seemed 
“slow” to his supervisor because he was a brand new DT3 and had missed a lot of time 
at work while his wife was hospitalized and so had not yet thoroughly learned the job.  
He also stated that he had never felt guilty about his wife’s ulcerative colitis, as the psy-
chiatrist suggested.  He alleged that the only emotion he expressed to the psychiatrist 
was frustration at not being able to take care of his wife and son.  The applicant also 
alleged  that  the  psychiatrist’s  statement  in  the  addendum  that  he  had  been  attending 
counseling sessions weekly is false, as he only saw the psychiatrist on April 18 and 21, 
and he pointed out that there are no records of the alleged weekly counseling sessions 
in  his  medical  records.    He  also  alleged  that  no  one  in  his  command  had  ever 
approached him about the quality or pace of his work. 
 
 
The applicant stated that a few weeks later, he received discharge orders with a 
letter stating that he was being discharged for unsuitability due to a personality disor-
der.  He had thought that the psychiatrist was arranging a hardship discharge for him 
and was shocked by the orders.  However, he did not object to the orders because he 

felt that his situation was desperate, and he did not understand the full implications of 
the discharge. 
 
After he left the Coast Guard, the applicant alleged, they moved to xxxxxxxxxxx 
 
and  his  wife’s  illness  eventually  stabilized.    They  have  remained  married  and  raised 
two sons.  Since leaving the Coast Guard, he has earned his Associate’s, Bachelor’s, and 
Master’s  degrees  in  education  and  is  presently  working  on  a  Master’s  of  Divinity 
Degree  with  a  concentration  in  counseling  at  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  Seminary.    He 
worked as an athletics instructor and basketball coach for four years after earning his 
Bachelor’s degree in 1983; as a trainer and production supervisor at a mill from 1987 to 
1990; as a park program manager and athletic coach from 1990 until 1997; and then as a 
recreation services manager for the Air Force for four years, before he resigned in 2001 
to pursue the ministry. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he never had a personality disorder.  He pointed out 
that no psychiatric problems were noted on the reports of his physical examinations for 
enlistment in and separation from the Air Force and enlistment in the Coast Guard and 
that he had served very successfully in the Air Force for three years and performed well 
in the Coast Guard.  He also pointed out that the psychiatrist’s is the only documenta-
tion of any performance problem in his record. 
 
 
Regarding the untimeliness of his application, the applicant stated that although 
he has known of the errors in his record since 1977, he “was unaware that there was any 
process for appeal or correction to military records and that there were time limitations 
to said process.” 
  

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  copies  of  his  Air  Force 
records, his wife’s medical records, his school transcripts, and numerous letters of rec-
ommendation and appreciation from past jobs and volunteer affiliations, which noted 
his  professionalism,  dependability,  diligence,  and  ability  to  work  well  with  all  age 
groups.  A copy of his final performance evaluation as a recreation services manager in 
the Air Force, dated May 25, 2000, shows that he was rated as “far above fully success-
ful” for most of the performance criteria and that he received the highest possible mark 
of  “outstanding”  for  his  “working relationships.”    Copies  of  documents  from  a  Navy 
recruiting office indicate that his recruiter rated him as an exceptional candidate for a 
Navy  chaplaincy.    The  applicant  also  submitted  a  letter  dated  June  20,  2003,  from  a 
counselor with a Master’s of Social Work (MSW) employed by the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  
She stated that a “clinical evaluation of [the applicant showed] him to be without any 
personality disorder and to be well suited for military service.”   
 
Statement and Health Records of Applicant’s Wife 
 
 
The applicant’s wife signed a statement, saying that the applicant had joined the 
Coast  Guard  because  they  had  missed  the  military  “way  of  life”  and  hoped  that  the 
applicant could make a career in the service.  However, soon after he began training, 
she became sick with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea that did not stop and gradually 
worsened  to  the  point  where  leaving  the  house  was  very  difficult.    She  lost  a  lot  of 
weight, had chills and fever, and had no energy.  After she moved to xxxxxxxxxxx, her 
condition  worsened  to  the  point  where  she  was  spending  all  of  her  time  in  the  bath-
room.  She finally was admitted to the hospital and received the diagnosis of ulcerative 
colitis.  
 
 
The applicant’s wife submitted hospital test results and a report prepared by her 
doctor after her discharge from the hospital in 1977.  The report indicates that she had 
been  hospitalized  from  January  10  to  February  1,  1977,  because  of  increasing  nausea, 
vomiting, and bloody diarrhea and a loss of more than 20 pounds (from 115 to 93) in six 
months.    The  doctor  noted  that  she  complained  of  having  bloody  diarrhea  between 
three  and  eight  times  every  day.    He  diagnosed  her  with  ulcerative  colitis  and  noted 
that she needed to return for follow-up visits. 
 
 
The  applicant’s  wife  stated  that,  because  they  had  no  friends  or  family  in  the 
area, and no money for child care, her husband had to stay at home with their son and 
“was being threatened at work.”  She stated that even after she was discharged a few 
weeks later, she was expected to attend outpatient visits, and there were days that she 
could not function.  However, she alleged, the applicant was not permitted to take time 
off to help her.  Every time he asked for time off, there was a “confrontation” with his 
supervisor, and the stress this caused them would cause a setback in her condition.  She 

stated  that  she  and the  applicant  “spent  days  talking  about  what  options  [they]  had” 
and “tried every avenue available to [them] for support.”  She stated that the applicant 
loved the camaraderie of the service and did not want to be discharged. 
 
 
The applicant’s wife stated that she has been told that her “condition is terminal 
but controlled” by daily medication.  Her condition has stabilized and is not debilitat-
ing.    She  stated  that  she  has  been  “functioning  within  normal  limits  for  the  past  18 
years.”  She concluded by stating that it was her illness that caused the applicant’s dis-
charge, and not any “unsuitability.” 

  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On April 8, 2004, the  Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  partial  relief  by 
upgrading his reenlistment code to RE-3G, which means that a veteran would be eligi-
ble for reenlistment except for a condition that is not a physical disability but that inter-
fered with his performance of duty.  A veteran with an RE-3 code must receive a waiver 
before he can be reenlisted. 
 
 
TJAG  relied  on  a  memorandum  from  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) concerning the applicant’s request.  CGPC stated that although the application 
was untimely, the Board should consider his request because the applicant has submit-
ted “voluminous documentation with his application that he has led a very productive 
life since and possibly overcome the underlying conditions that led to his separation in 
1977.”    CGPC  alleged  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  applicant’s  “discharge  for 
unsuitability  due  to  personality  disorder  was  in  error  or  unjust.”    CGPC  also  alleged 
that the applicant never requested a hardship discharge.  CGPC pointed out that he was 
afforded the opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf but never did so.   
 

CGPC stated that the Separation Designator Code (SPD) Handbook permits the 
assignment  of  either  an  RE-4  or  an  RE-3G  reenlistment  code  for members  discharged 
because  of  a  personality  disorder.    CGPC  stated,  based  upon  the  information  in  the 
record,  that  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  should  be  upgraded  “in  that  it  prevents  him 
from even being considered for service as a military chaplain.”  Therefore, CGPC rec-
ommended that it be upgraded to RE-3G. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 8, 2004, the Chair faxed the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  On April 21, 2004, the applicant’s 
response  was  received.    He  stated  that  he  is  “very  appreciative  of  the  Coast  Guard’s 
recommendation as it at least opens the door to allow [him] to pursue God’s calling on 
[his] life to ministry as a Navy chaplain.”  He argued, however, that the Coast Guard, in 

maintaining  that  he  has  a  personality  disorder,  is  ignoring  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence in the record.  He asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code to an RE-
1, rather than an RE-3G.  
 
 
In further support of his allegation that he does not have a personality disorder, 
the  applicant  submitted  two  signed  statements.    Dr.  P,  a  psychologist,  wrote  that  the 
diagnosis of “Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life” meant only that the applicant “was 
not able to handle the challenges he faced” when his wife became critically ill just as he 
was trying to launch a new career in the Coast Guard.  He stated that the applicant’s 
successful history of employment and personal relationships—both before and after his 
enlistment  in  the  Coast  Guard—contradicts  the  diagnosis  of  a  personality  disorder.  
Dr. P  stated  that  true  personality  disorders  are  permanent  and  do  not  come  and  go.  
Dr. P stated that his examination of the applicant indicates that he has no mental illness 
or significant psychosocial problem and that he is “in excellent mental health.” 
 
 
A  doctor  of  clinical  psychology  and  Associate  Professor  of  Pastoral  Care  and 
Counseling at the applicant’s seminary stated that the applicant has been his student for 
almost three years.  He stated that the diagnosis of “inadequate personality disorder” 
was dropped from the DSM in 1980 because it was “found to be unreliable.”  He also 
stated  that  his  observations  of  the  applicant  “provide  absolutely  no  evidence  for  any 
type of personality disorder.  In fact, to the contrary, he is well-adjusted and capable.  I 
have seen no evidence for any type of mental disorder.” 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 1977 (CG-207) 
authorized the Commandant to discharge members for unsuitability if they had, “[a]s 
determined by medical authority, personality behavior disorders and disorders of intel-
ligence listed in Chapter 5, CG Medical Manual (CG-294).”  Article 12.B.16.(d) required 
that any member considered for such a discharge be informed in writing of the reason 
for the proposed discharge and be afforded an opportunity to make a statement in his 
own  behalf.    A  member  who  declined  to  make  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf  was 
required to sign a statement to this effect. 
 
 
Article  5.C.1.(b)(2)  of  the  Medical  Manual  (CG-294)  stated  that  members  diag-
nosed  with  personality  disorders,  various  sexual  preferences,  addictions,  and  “Tran-
sient  situational  disturbances:  Adjustment  reaction  of:  adolescence[,]  late  life[,]  Adult 
situation  reaction[,]  Gross  stress  reaction”  “should  be  considered  for  ‘Administrative 
Discharges’ (Refer to Article 12-B-10 and 12-B-12, CG Personnel Manual, CG-207).” 
 
Article 12.B.10. of the Personnel Manual dealt with discharges for unsuitability, 
 
but it was removed from the manual and replaced by Article 12.B.16. on April 8, 1977, 
pursuant  to  Amendment  62.    Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel Manual  dealt  with  dis-

charges for the “convenience of the Government.”  Article 12.B.12.(e) stated that “[i]n 
cases where the commanding officer feels that separation should not be for the conven-
ience  of  the  Government,  but  for  unsuitability,  misconduct,  or  for  any  other  reason, 
suitable recommendation will be forwarded to Commandant (G-PE) for consideration.  
Cases in this category would be those where the record of the member concerned show 
commission  of  serious  military  offenses,  a  generally  unsatisfactory  military  record,  or 
other good and sufficient cause in the opinion of the commanding officer.” 
 
 
Article  12.B.13.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorized  the  Commandant  to  dis-
charge  a  member  for  hardship  or  dependency  and  required  that  members  who 
requested  such  a  discharge  be  informed  of  the  proper  procedures  to  follow.    Under 
Article 12.B.13.(c)(3)(b), the Commandant could authorize a hardship discharge when it 
was  determined  that  the  “member’s  family  is  undergoing  hardship  more  severe  than 
the normal hardships encountered by dependents or families of members of the Coast 
Guard; that this hardship is not of a temporary nature and the release of the member 
will result in the elimination of, or will materially alleviate, the condition, and that there 
are  no  means  of  alleviation  readily  available  other  than  be  release  from  active  duty.  
Pregnancy  of  an  enlisted  man’s  wife  is  not  in  itself  a  circumstance  for  which  release 
from active duty will be authorized.”  Article 12.B.13.(d) provided that, after the policies 
were explained to a member, he would “be permitted to submit a written application 
for discharge or release from active duty for dependency or hardship to the Comman-
dant (G-PE), via the  commanding officer.  Sympathetic consideration will be given  in 
the preparation of this request.” 
 

Article  12.B.16.b.  of  the  current  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  unsuitability  dis-
charges  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  personality  disorders  that  qualify  a  member  for 
administrative discharge pursuant to Article 12 of the Personnel Manual.  Adjustment 
disorders are not included among the personality disorders listed.  Adjustment disor-
ders are, however, listed in Chapter 5.B.3 of the Medical Manual, which states that they 
“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 …) process in accordance with [Article 12 of the Personnel Man-
ual] as necessary.” 

 
 
Commandant Instruction 1900.4A, issued on May 14, 1975, provided instructions 
for the preparation of the discharge form DD 214.4  Enclosure (2) of the instruction per-
                                                 
4  Because COMDTINST 1900.4A was issued before Amendment 62, which reorganized Article 12 of the 
Personnel Manual, the COMDTINST refers to erroneous articles of the Personnel Manual as the Separa-
tion Authorities for each SPD code. In 1975, when the COMDTINST was issued, Article 12.B.6. governed 
discharges  for  the  convenience  of  the  Government;  Article  12.B.7.  governed  hardship  discharges;  and 
Article 12.B.10. governed unsuitability discharges. 

mitted  the  following  combinations  of  codes  and  narrative  reasons  for  separation  that 
might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

Narrative Reason for 
Separation 

SPD 
Code 
JMB  Unsuitability— 
Character and 
Behavior Disorders 

JFV  Condition, Not a 

Disability 

JFF 

Separation for Good 
and Sufficient Reasons 
when Determined by 
the Secretary of 
Transportation 

KDB  Hardship 

 

RE Code 

RE-4 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.10. 

 
Remarks 
Enclosure (2) qualifies this code with the remark that 
“Member must not object.” 

12.B.6. 

RE-4, 
RE-3G, 
or RE-3X 

RE-1 or 
RE-4 

12.B.6. 

JFV denoted an involuntarily discharge when the 
member had a condition that was not a physical dis-
ability but that interfered with the performance of 
duty (enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, fear of 
flying, etc.). 
 

RE-3H or 

RE-4 

12.B.7. 

KDB denotes a voluntary discharge by direction of 
competent authority. 

 
 
The JMB SPD code is no longer used today.  Instead, Article 12.B.16. of the Per-
sonnel  Manual  (COMDTINST  M1000.6A)  and  the  SPD  Handbook  provide  that  mem-
bers discharged because of a personality disorder receive the SPD code JFX, an RE-4 or 
RE-3G reenlistment code, and “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for sepa-
ration shown on their DD 214s, instead of “Unsuitability.” 

 

 

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. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the day the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). The applicant 
received  his  discharge  form  DD  214  in  1977  and  knew  or  should  have  known  of  his 
reenlistment  code  and  narrative  reason  for  separation  at  that  time.    Therefore,  his 
request is 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-

1. 
§ 1552.  
 
2. 

cant  stated  that  he  was  unaware  of  the  BCMR  process  until  recently.    Moreover,  the 
Board’s  review  of  the  record  indicates  that  the  Judge  Advocate  General  has  recom-
mended granting certain relief and that there is some merit in the case.  Therefore, the 
Board will waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on the merits. 

 
4. 

In 1977, the applicant was diagnosed with “Adjustment Reaction of Adult 
Life,” diagnostic code 307.3 in DSM-II.  This diagnosis was abandoned in 1980 and is no 
longer in use by the American Psychiatric Association or the Coast Guard.  According 
to the Textbook of Military Medicine published by the Office of the Surgeon General of the 
United States Army, the diagnosis was “reserved for more or less transient disorders of 
any severity … that occur in individuals without any apparent underlying mental dis-
order and that represent an acute reaction from overwhelming environmental stress. …  
If  the  patient  has  good  adaptive  capacity,  his  symptoms  usually  recede  as  the  stress 
diminishes.”5  Furthermore, someone who was diagnosed with “Adjustment Reaction 
of Adult Life” in 1977 would today receive a diagnosis of either an adjustment disorder 
or  post-traumatic  stress  disorder,  not  a  diagnosis  of  a  (permanent)  personality 
disorder.6  

 
5. 

The applicant has submitted reports from a licensed social worker; Dr. P, a 
practicing  psychologist;  and  a  clinical  psychologist  who,  as  an  Associate  Professor  of 
Pastoral Care and Counseling, has known the applicant for three years.  All three have 
stated that the applicant has no personality disorder and no mental illness.  Given these 
professional assessments; the applicant’s success in the Air Force and civilian life; and 
the fact that his condition in 1977 would today be diagnosed as an adjustment disorder, 
which is a temporary condition and not an indication of any underlying mental illness, 
the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
he has never had a personality disorder and has never been diagnosed with a personal-
ity disorder, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, whose terms and defi-
nitions are used by the Coast Guard.  

 
6. 

The  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  as  the 
applicant, at age 22, was attempting to launch a career in the Coast Guard as a dental 
technician, his wife became critically ill and unable to care for their three-year-old son.  
The  Board  notes  that the  psychiatrist  who diagnosed  the  applicant  with  “Adjustment 
Reaction  of  Adult  Life”  on  May  2,  1977,  indicated  that  the  applicant’s  symptoms  had 
begun four months before, in early January 1977, which is when his wife was first hos-
pitalized and diagnosed with chronic ulcerative colitis.  The applicant alleged that the 
psychiatrist’s  report  was  a  trumped-up  document  concocted  to  ensure  his  discharge 
after  his  supervisor  refused  to  forward  any  request  for  a  compassionate  transfer  or  a 
                                                 
5  Zajtchuk,  Russ,  series  ed.,  TEXTBOOK  OF  MILITARY  MEDICINE,  Jones,  Franklin  D.,  et  al.,  eds.,  War 
Psychiatry, Jones, Franklin D., “Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” (Office of the Surgeon General, 
United States Army, 1995), pp. 411-13. 
6  Id. at 413. 

hardship  discharge  up  the  chain  of  command.    However,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the 
military record to confirm his allegations about his supervisor’s and psychiatrist’s atti-
tudes and actions, and absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must conclude that 
they acted “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); Arens v. United 
States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 
(Ct.  Cl.  1979).    The  Board  finds  that  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record 
indicates that in the spring of 1977, the applicant was suffering from what would today 
be diagnosed as an adjustment reaction to the stress of trying to cope with the demands 
of his new job, his ill wife, and his young son.  The preponderance of the record also 
indicates that after his wife’s illness stabilized, he was able to attend school, earn several 
degrees, and have a career as an athletic coach and trainer and recreation services man-
ager, which indicates that the adjustment reaction was temporary. 

 
7. 

 In  1977,  the  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  grouped  the  diagnosis  of  a 
(usually temporary) “Adjustment Reaction of Adult Life” (307.3) with various perma-
nent  personality  disorders  and  permitted  members  with  such  diagnoses  to  be  dis-
charged  for  unsuitability  with  the  same  SPD  code,  JMB.    As  indicated  by  the  Judge 
Advocate General’s advisory opinion, the JMB SPD code that the applicant received is 
today interpreted as denoting a discharge because of a diagnosed permanent personal-
ity  disorder.  More  recently,  although  Chapter  5  of  the  Medical  Manual  now  distin-
guishes between personality disorders and adjustment disorders, members still some-
times  receive  personality  disorder  discharges  even  though  they  have  been  diagnosed 
with adjustment disorders.7 

 
8. 

There has never been an SPD code specifically for people diagnosed with 
adjustment disorders.  There are a limited number of separation codes available to the 
Coast  Guard;  they  cannot  be  tailor-made  to  reflect  exactly  the  circumstances  of  each 
member’s discharge.  Therefore, members sometimes receive SPD codes and narrative 
reasons for separation that do not perfectly reflect the causes of their discharge.  How-
ever, because SPD codes and narrative reasons for separation are reviewed by military 
and  some  civilian  employers  in  recruiting  employees,  it  is  extremely  important  that 
they be fair and not unduly prejudicial to the veteran.  

 
9. 

The  Board  has  previously  upheld  personality  disorder  discharges  for 
members  who  have  actually  been  diagnosed  with  a  personality  disorder  or  a  chronic 
adjustment disorder that has led to inappropriate behavior or misconduct which fully 
supports their diagnoses.8  The Board has previously corrected such discharges when 

                                                 
7  See,  e.g.,  BCMR  Docket  Nos.  2003-015,  1999-037,  and  1999-050,  in  which  members  were  processed  for 
personality disorder discharges based on a diagnosed adjustment disorder. 
8  See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2001-020, 2000-142, 1999-185, 1999-037, and 1998-099 in which the Board 
upheld  the  unsuitability  and  personality  disorder  discharges  of,  respectively,  a  veteran  who  was 
diagnosed  with  a  dependent  personality  disorder  after  going  AWOL  and  committing  various  other 
disciplinary infractions; a veteran who was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and went to 

members have not been diagnosed with a personality disorder and/or when there has 
been  insufficient  evidence  of  behavioral  problems  to  support  the  diagnosis.9    In  this 
case, the psychiatrist’s second-hand mention of the slow speed of the applicant’s work 
is the only evidence of any performance problem in the record.  Moreover, the record 
indicates  that  he  completed  a  very  successful  enlistment  in  the  Air  Force;  he  finished 
third  in  his  class  to  become  a  dental  technician;  he  received  a  reasonably  satisfactory 
performance evaluation in June 1977; and there is no documentation of any disciplinary 
infractions. 

 
10. 

In  light  of  the  above  findings,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  SPD 
code,  narrative  reason  for  separation,  and  reenlistment  code  constitute  errors  in  his 
record  that  should  be  corrected  by  the  Board.    The  Judge  Advocate  General  recom-
mended that the Board only correct the applicant’s reenlistment code.  However, given 
the quality of the applicant’s record and the fact that he was diagnosed with what today 
would  be  called  an  adjustment  disorder  under  clearly  stressful  conditions,  the  Board 
finds that more relief should be granted.  Moreover, the Board notes that, with the RE-
3G code that the Judge Advocate General recommended, the applicant would in theory 
only  have  to  prove  that  he  no  longer  has  an  adjustment  disorder  to  join the  military, 
while  his  wife’s  continuing  illness—the  primary  underlying  cause  of  his  1977  adjust-
ment disorder —would not necessarily be considered.  

 
11. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to provide him with a 
hardship discharge and an RE-1 reenlistment code.  The applicant has proved by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that his adjustment reaction/disorder was caused primarily 
by the hardship of trying to care for his ill wife and young son while fulfilling his com-
mitment to the Coast Guard.  Whether the stressful circumstances of his case actually 
warranted  a  hardship  discharge  at  the  time  is  not  clear  to  the  Board.    However,  the 
types of discharges provided under Commandant Instruction 1900.4A and the Person-
nel  Manual  were  limited,  and  a  hardship  discharge  would  be  a  fair  and  reasonably 
                                                                                                                                                             
an historic tower, told a guard at the bottom that he was going to hang himself off the top with a dog 
collar  and  leash,  and  waited  at  the  top  until  the  police  arrived;  a  veteran  with  numerous  disciplinary 
infractions  and  performance  problems  in  his  record  who  was  diagnosed  by  two  psychiatrists  with  a 
borderline personality disorder; a veteran who frequently exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior over a 
two-year period and was twice diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct”; and a 
veteran  who  was  twice  arrested  for  indecent  exposure  and  diagnosed  with  narcissistic  personality 
disorder.  
9 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2003-015, 2001-104, 2001-072, and 1999-050, in which the Board corrected 
the personality discharges of, respectively, a veteran whose diagnosed adjustment disorder with schizoid 
and schizotypal traits was determined after his discharge to have been an early stage of his psychosis; a 
veteran  who  was  diagnosed  with  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  after  she  was  attacked  by  a  fellow 
servicemember; a veteran who had no disciplinary problems but who was unable to adjust to shipboard 
life and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder by two psychologists and a personality disorder by one 
psychiatrist; and a newly married veteran who was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder after being 
told that accepting transfer orders to be stationed near her husband would require that she remain in the 
Service for an additional two years. 

accurate correction of his DD 214.  The Board notes that, while the applicant’s adjust-
ment disorder has clearly dissipated over the past 25 years, his wife is still ill, though 
apparently  no  longer  as  symptomatic  as  she  was  in  1977.    Moreover,  whether  the 
applicant’s stressful circumstances in 1977 actually warranted a hardship discharge is a 
judgment call, and there is no evidence that any authority deliberated the question in 
1977.  Absent a more accurate discharge under Commandant Instruction 1900.4A and 
Personnel Manual, the Board finds that the applicant’s request for a hardship discharge 
should be granted.  The Board notes that the Coast Guard has in the past recommended 
that  the  Board  correct  a  veteran’s  personality  disorder  discharge  to  a  hardship 
discharge  when  the  veteran  was  diagnosed  with  both  an  adjustment  disorder  and  an 
obsessive-compulsive  personality  disorder  after  he  asked  to  be  discharged  merely 
because of homesickness.10   
 

12.  Although the applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code 
to  RE-1,  under  Commandant  Instruction  1900.4A  and  the  current  SPD  Handbook, 
members  discharged  because  of  hardship  could  be  assigned  only  an  RE-4  or  RE-3H 
reenlistment code.  The applicant presented some evidence to show that his wife’s ill-
ness has stabilized since 1977.  However, the Board is not in a position to judge whether 
the applicant’s wife’s medical condition should no longer be a potential deterrent to his 
military  service.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  his  reenlistment  code  should  be 
upgraded to RE-3H. 

 
13.  Accordingly, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to correct 
the applicant’s SPD code to KDB; the narrative reason for separation shown on his DD 
214 to “Hardship”; the separation authority to Article 12.B.7. of the Personnel Manual 
(CG-207); and the reenlistment code to RE-3H.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

                                                 
10 See BCMR Docket No. 2001-032. 

 

ORDER 

 

The application record of former DT3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for 

correction of his military is granted in part as follows:   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jordan S. Fried 

                                                          

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  his  DD  214  and  other  Coast  Guard  records, 
including the form CGHQ-3299 in his record, to show that the separation authority is 
Article  12.B.7.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (CG-207);  his  separation  code  is  KDB;  the 
narrative reason for separation is “Hardship”; and his reenlistment code is RE-3H.   
 
 
 
 
                                                                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger