DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-057 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Ulmer, D.  
 
 
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 January 20, 2004, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and 
military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  November  17,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant, who  had prior active and reserve Navy service and prior active 
and reserve Coast Guard service, began a period of active duty in the Coast Guard on 
September  1,  1999,  and  was  honorably  discharged  on  July  20,  2001,  by  reason  of 
personality disorder, with a JFX (personality disorder) separation code, and with a RE-4 
(not eligible for reenlistment) reenlistment code.  His most recent period of active duty 
totaled  one  year  and  one  day.    However,  he  has  served  a  total  of  eight  years,  five 
months, and 13 days on active duty during his military career. 1 
 

  

The  applicant  initially  requested  that  the  BCMR  order  the  Coast  Guard  to 
convene  a  medical  board  to  investigate  whether  certain  injuries  and  diseases  (major 
depression, panic disorder with agoraphobia, and left ankle instability) left him unfit for 

                                                 
1      There  is  disagreement  between  the  applicant  and  Coast  Guard  as  to  whether  the  applicant  was  a 
member of the regular Coast Guard during this last period of active duty. 
 

duty and therefore unfit for separation.  He also requested at that time that his record 
be corrected to show that he was medically discharged from the Coast Guard and that 
he be assigned the appropriate corresponding separation and reenlistment codes.   
 

Subsequent  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  received 
additional  relief  from  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA),  which  included 
recognizing injuries/diseases to the left ankle, back, and right knee as service connected 
disabilities.  His combined DVA disability rating was increased from 50% to 60%.  After 
receiving  the  increased  disability  rating,  the  applicant  amended  his  correction 
application  and  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  DD  Form  214  to  show  that  he  was 
discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  for  medical  reasons  rather  than  for  a  personality 
disorder.    He  further  requested  that  the  Board  upgrade  his  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3  (eligible  for  reenlistment,  except  for 
disqualifying  factor).  The  applicant  also  stated,  "I  seek  for  relief  from  the  Board  in 
regards to the Honorable Discharge Certificate DD Form 256."  The applicant's amended 
correction application did not include a request for a medical board.    
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged in his amended application that he was never diagnosed 
with a personality disorder and he never received non-judicial punishment.  He stated 
that he was diagnosed with having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and 
not with having a personality disorder.  He stated that if the Coast Guard had used the 
DSM-IV,  they  would  have  known  that  there  is  no  relationship  between  ADHD  and 
personality disorder.  He stated that being labeled as having a personality disorder has 
adversely affected his civilian employment opportunities.    
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant,  as  a  reservist,  began  an  extended  active  duty  contract  on 
September 1, 1999.2 In March 2000 the applicant suffered a left ankle injury on which 
reconstructive surgery was performed in October 2000.  He was treated with four weeks 
of physical therapy and released by his doctor on December 22, 2000.    
 

 A medical note dated December 21, 1999, indicated that the applicant was being 
treated with the drug Prozac. The applicant stated that during the winter (2000) months, 
he began seeing a doctor for depression because of problems related to his ankle injury 
and  seasonal  depression.    A  medical  note  dated  January  21,  2000,  indicated  that  the 
applicant's command was concerned that the applicant was being treated with Prozac.  
The physician wrote in that note that the applicant "does think he wants to go off Prozac 

                                                 
2 According to his DD Form 214, the applicant began a period of active duty in the Coast Guard on July 
20, 2000. 

this  summer,  so  that  the  Coast  Guard  will  allow  him  to  go  out  on  search  and  rescue 
missions." 
 
The  applicant  underwent  a  medical  examination  that  began  on  February  26, 
 
2001, and terminated on May 25, 2001.  On the Report of Medical Examination dated 
February 26, 2001, block 16., which is labeled "purpose of examination," contained the 
typed  words  "periodic/replacement"  and  the  hand  written  words  "separation  fit  for 
duty."  In block 43 the physician noted the following defects and diagnoses:  left chronic 
ankle  pain  and  back  pain.  The  physician  recommended  that  the  applicant  have  an 
orthopedic evaluation of the left ankle.  Block 42 of the report noted that there was an 
addendum to the medical examination dated May 16, 2001, and it also noted that the 
applicant had been diagnosed with depression, panic disorder, and ADHD, and that he 
had been the subject of a limited duty board.  On the medical report, the applicant was 
marked as both qualified and not qualified "to perform the duties in rate at sea and on 
foreign shores". This Board assumed that the not qualified block was checked as a result 
of the February examination and the qualified block was marked as a result of the May 
examination3.  The report is stamped with a statement dated May 25, 2001, signed by a 
hospital service chief (E-7) that the applicant "met the physical standard for discharge."  
 

On March 5, 2001, the applicant's officer-in-charge (OIC) requested a fit for full 

duty evaluation of the applicant.  He stated that  
 

 

[the  applicant]  is  still  feeling  discomfort  and  continues  to  stress  the 
repaired area.  Command concerns are whether or not [the applicant] will 
be able to operate small boats as required by his job. Our RHIB is operated 
in a stand-up position.  Member is also experiencing back and knee pain.  
 
On March 22, 2001, the applicant's command requested that a Navy psychiatrist 
evaluate  the  applicant  to  determine  whether  he  suffered  from  ADHD  or  depression.  
The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having ADHD.  The applicant was placed 
on Effexor and returned to full duty.  He was supposed to return to the clinic within 
two weeks to complete the evaluation.   
 

On  March  25,  2001,  the  applicant  reported  to  a  Navy  hospital  stating  that  he 
"came to be admitted to figure out my medication."  According to the medical history 
on  the  Discharge  Narrative  dated  March  30,  2001,  the  applicant  saw  a  psychiatrist  in 
January  2001  and  was  prescribed  Prozac.    According  to  the  summary,  the  applicant 
stopped  taking  Prozac  and  was  subsequently  restarted  on  Serzone  and  prescribed 
Adderall at 5 mg a day, which he increased to twice per day on his own.    The narrative 

                                                 
3   The applicant stated in a submission to the BCMR that that "[o]n  16 May 2001, I was sent to the Naval 
Great Lakes Medical Clinic to receive my discharge physical." 
 

noted the applicant had had some outburst of anger but denied suicidal or homicidal 
ideation.  It described the applicant's mental status upon admission as follows: 
 

The  patient  was  a  tall,  thin  white  male,  wearing  hospital  pajamas.    The 
patient  was  cooperative  and  had  good  military  bearing.    He  had  no 
psychomotor agitation or retardation.  The patient's eye contact was good.  
The patient's speech was somewhat increased in rate, but not pressured.  
It was normal in volume and tone.  The patient's mood was "okay."  The 
patient's effect was neutral, but full, appropriate to content and nonlabile.  
The  patient's  thought  processes  were  logical,  linear  and  goal  directed.  
There  was  no  flight  of  ideas  or  looseness  of  association.    The  patient's 
thought  content  was  without  any  current  suicidal  ideation  or  homicidal 
ideation.    The  patient  was  focused  on  his  motivation  to  continue  in  the 
Coast Guard.  There was no evidence of psychosis.  The patient was alert 
and  oriented  times  three.    The  patient's  insight  was  good.    The  patient's 
judgment and impulse control are currently not impaired.   

The Narrative Summary upon discharge provided the following with respect to 

 
 
the applicant's hospital course. 
 

The  patient  was  admitted  [and]  afforded  group,  individual  and  milieu 
therapy.    The  patient  was  cooperative  on  the  unit  and  was  not  a 
management  problem.    Throughout  his  hospitalization,  he  denied  any 
suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation.  Although he did feel anxious and 
have  some  minor  panic  attacks.    [N]o  severe  panic  attacks  were  noted.  
The patient's mood and affect remained mostly euthymic throughout his 
hospitalization.    The  patient's  medications  were  stopped  and  he  was 
begun on Paxil 20 mg . . . He tolerated this without difficulty.  The wife 
was spoken to again regarding information.  She confirmed his occasional 
passive death wishes but denied any overt suicidal threats.  She also again 
confirmed that he had never physically abused her or threatened to abuse 
her  but  that  he  would  have  frequent  anger  outbursts.    The  patient  was 
confronted with this and stated that he desired anger management.  . . .  
The  patient  was  pleased  that  he  was  recommended  fit  for  duty.    The 
command was contacted and liaisoned with both directly and through the 
Coast Guard liaison and they understood this recommendation . . .   
 
FINAL DIAGNOSIS(ES): 
 
AXIS:   
remission, did not exist prior to entry, non-disabling. 
 

1.    Major  Depressive  Disorder,  single  episode,  in  partial 

2.  Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, existed prior to entry, 

 

 
non-disabling. 
 

3.  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, existed prior to  

Back pain and Dermatitis 

Obsessive Compulsive traits 

Marital difficulties and routine military service . . .   

  entry,  non-disabling. 
 
AXIS II:   
 
AXIS III 
 
AXIS IV 
 
RECOMMENDATION PLAN: 
 
2.  The patient was discharged back to the Coast Guard fit for full duty. 
 
3.  Condition: Stable 
 
4.  Medications:  Paxil 20 mg pr qhs . . .  
 
6.    The  patient  is  to  follow  up  through  HS1  [B]  .  .  .  to  arrange  his  own 
follow-up. 

  
The record indicates that the applicant's ankle was evaluated on April 10, 2001, 
 
by  the  orthopedic  department  at  a  Naval  hospital.    A  document  labeled  Report  of 
Medical Board stated that the applicant was diagnosed with left ankle instability.  The 
report indicated that x-rays taken on the day of examination showed "two metallic bone 
suture  anchors  in  his  fibula,  which  appear  to  be  well-positioned.    There  is  no  other 
skeletal  abnormality  noted."    The  Medical  Board  found  the  applicant  fit  for  duty,  but 
placed him in a limited duty status for eight months, restricting him from driving a boat 
in a standup position. The Medical Board recommended a prolonged period of physical 
therapy and an ankle support, and further stated:  "Ultimately, should [the applicant] 
desire further stability of his ankle, a lateral ankle reconstruction . . . may be indicated."  
 

On  April  16,  2001,  the  applicant  was  advised  by  his  commanding  officer  (CO) 
that  the  CO  had  initiated  action  to  discharge  him  from  the  Coast  Guard  due  to 
unsuitability because he had been diagnosed with ADHD.  The applicant was advised 
that  he  could  write  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf  objecting  to  the  discharge.    The 
applicant,  by  his  signature,  stated  that  he  did  not  object  to  the  discharge  and  that  he 
intended to submit a statement.   

 

In an April 16, 2001, letter to the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC),  the  applicant's  OIC  requested  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  by  reason  of 
unsuitability due to ADHD. 
 
 
On April 20, 2001, the applicant prepared a written statement in response to the 
proposed discharge.   He stated that he did not object to the discharge but he wanted to 
document the fact that he had incurred an  ankle injury while on  active duty.   In this 
regard, he stated that he had surgery on the ankle and that he had completed 4 weeks of 
physical  therapy  and  was  released  from  the  surgeon's  care  on  December  22,  2000.  
However,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  continued  to  have  instability  and  pain  in  the 
ankle  and  that  a  fit  for  duty  evaluation  determined  that  he  suffered  from  ankle 
instability.  The applicant wrote that he was postponing surgery on the ankle and that 
he  would  seek  a  medical  opinion  from  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  after  his 
discharge.   
 
 
A Report of Medical History dated May 16, 2001 was completed by the applicant 
and  reviewed  by  Dr.  I.    A  Report  of  Medical  Assessment  was  also  completed  by  the 
applicant and reviewed by Dr. I.  The applicant reported on these documents that he 
suffered from several medical problems, including problems with the ankle, back, knee, 
stomach, depression, and panic disorder.  However, Dr. I did not indicate on his portion 
of  these  documents  that  any  of  these  conditions  caused  the  applicant  to  be  unfit  for 
separation.  
 
On  June  1,  2001,  CGPC  advised  the  applicant's  command  that  because  the 
 
applicant  had  more  than  eight  years  of  service  he  was  entitled  to  have  his  case 
considered  by  an  administrative  discharge  board  (ADB),  unless  the  applicant  waived 
such right after consulting with a lawyer. 
 
 
In  an  undated  letter,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  waiving  his  right  to  a 
hearing  before  an  ADB.    The  applicant  acknowledged  that  he  voluntarily  signed  the 
statement  after  having  been  counseled  by  a  lawyer.    The  lawyer  signed  the  waiver 
statement, as did a witness.   
 
On June 18, 2001, the waiver was faxed to CGPC.  The fax cover sheet stated the 
 
following:    "Member  [the  applicant]  has  signed  waiver  and  is  trying  to  make  college 
enroll[ment] in Louisiana.  Request discharge ASAP." 
 
 
On June 21, 2001, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged from the Coast 
Guard by reason of unsuitability with a JFX (personality disorder) separation code and 
an RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 
 
 

The applicant was discharged on July 20, 2001. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Ratings 
 
 
After his discharge from the Coast Guard the applicant applied to the DVA for 
treatment and compensation.  Initially, the DVA gave the applicant a combined overall 
40% disability rating for major depressive (30%), limited motion of ankle (10%), tinnitus 
(10%), and hearing loss (0%).  In July 2002, the DVA gave the applicant a 10% disability 
rating for duodenitis with gastric reflux, increasing the applicant's overall rating to 50%. 
On  October  3,  2003,  the  DVA  amended  its  decision  and  granted  the  applicant  a 
combined  overall  60%  percent  disability  rating  for  major  depressive  disorder; 
spondylosis  of  the  lumbosacral  spine  at  level  L5;  chronic  left  ankle  injury  instability; 
tinnitus; duodenitis with gastric reflux; scar, residuals, left ankle; medial meniscus tear, 
right knee; and left ear hearing loss.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  3,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief to the 
applicant.    In  this  regard,  he  agreed  with  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC) that the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he was 
discharged  by  reason  of  physical  disability,  with  a  JFN  (disability,  existed  prior  to 
enlistment) separation code and a RE-3P reenlistment code.   CGPC also recommended 
that Block 2 on the DD Form 214 be corrected to show that the applicant was a member 
of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  rather  than  the  regular  Coast  Guard.    In  recommending 
partial relief, CGPC stated the following: 
 

While  unresolved  ADHD  is  grounds  for  administrative  separation  from 
the service, the Coast Guard's decision to separate the Applicant for this 
reason  was  in  error.    Regrettably,  this  error  unjustly  deprived  the 
Applicant of his due process right to an evaluation of his diagnosed major 
depression and panic disorder through, at a minimum, an Initial Medical 
Board,  and  possible  further  processing 
in  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation  System  (PDES).    Although  the  psychiatrist  found  that  the 
Applicant's single episode of major depression was in remission, and that 
his  panic  disorder  existed  prior  to  entry  into  the  service,  and  that  these 
conditions were non-disabling, the final determination on these matters [is 
within] the purview of the medical board process and the PDES.   
 
The applicant specifically requested that his DD-214 be corrected to reflect 
discharge for medical reasons, instead of personality disorder, as this has 
caused  him  problems  with  potential  employers.    I  believe  this  specific 
request for relief is reasonable and appropriate.  Potentially, the Applicant 
is entitled to the additional relief of having his disabilities evaluated by a 
Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  to  officially  determine  service 

connection, percentage of disability at the time of separation, and possible 
entitlement  to  retirement  or  severance  pay.    However,  based  on  the 
following  information  from  the  record,  I  do  not  believe  it  is  in  the 
Applicant's best interest to receive any relief beyond his specific request: 
 
a.    It  is  evident  that  the  Applicant  concealed  his  history  of  depression, 
anxiety and ADHD . . . when he enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve . . .  
This  could  have  led  to  his  discharge  for  fraudulent  enlistment,  with  no 
entitlement  to  processing  through  the  PDES,  and  possible  loss  of  some 
veteran's benefits . . .  This information would certainly be considered in 
the  processing  of  any  CPEB  convened  in  determining  whether  the 
Applicant  is  entitled  to  disability  benefits  from  the  Service.    The  Coast 
Guard  does  not  reward  people  for  concealing  information  about  pre-
existing conditions that may have been aggravated by military service.      
 
b.    Under  any  circumstance,  the  Applicant  is  receiving  the  maximum 
benefits he is entitled to for his conditions through the VA.  Accruing any 
additional  benefits  .  .  .  as  the  result  of  CPEB  proceedings  is  highly 
doubtful,  because  of  the  strong  evidence  that  his  conditions  pre-existed 
entry into the service. 

 
 
CGPC stated that there is no specific Separation Program Designator (SPD) code 
authority for separating a member due to a disability that existed prior to service in the 
absence  of  the  findings  of  an  actual  medical  board.  He  further  stated  that  no  benefit 
would  be  gained,  nor  would  it  be  in  the  applicant's  interests,  to  convene  a  medical 
board in this case.  Accordingly, he recommended that the JFN separation code be used 
in this case. 
 
 
With  respect  to  the  applicant's  component  at  the  time  of  his  discharge,  CGPC 
stated  that  the  applicant  was  a  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  even  though  he 
was serving on active duty at the time of his discharge. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 3, 2004, the BCMR received the applicant's reply to the views of the 
Coast Guard.  He stated that the correction of his DD Form 214 was his most important 
concern.  In this regard, he stated that there "is no good cause for a personality disorder 
designation on [his] DD Form 214." 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  his  next  concern  is  "to  have  [his]  due  process."    He 
stated  that  he  was  discharged  improperly  and  believes  he  "should  have  had  received 
some form of medical discharge."  He stated that he recently (2004) had a second ankle 

surgery, and that his ankle condition, major depression, and panic disorder should have 
been attended to properly before his discharge. 
 
The applicant stated that the Coast Guard is attempting to use a statement made 
 
during his mental examination in 2001 to prove that he fraudulently enlisted in 1997.  
He  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  using  his  statement  to  Dr.  B  that  he  has  been 
"depressed most of his life, with poor concentration, difficulty in school, and continuous 
feelings of anxiety since adolescence" to prove  the "no" answer he gave to the question 
"have you ever had or have you now depression or excessive worry? Nervous trouble 
of any sort?" was fraudulent.   The applicant further stated: 
 

I  did  not  know  what  depression  was  until  I  spoke  with  Doctor  [B}  in 
March  2001.    I  told  him  my  statement  after he  told  me  what  depression 
was and how it affects people.  I also did not know prior to 2001 that I had 
ADHD, I was never diagnosed with this condition until after I entered the 
Coast Guard.  
 
So, back in 1997 when I was asked to answer that question, I said no.  I just 
dealt with my things in my life, its called "learning to cope and deal with 
your difficulties . . . To which each person does the best way they know 
how.    I  DID  NOT  KNOW  THAT  IT  WAS  DEPRESSION  OR  ANXIETY, 
WHEN I FILLED OUT THE FORM BACK IN 1997.  

 
The applicant stated that he was in the Reserve on extended active duty in the 
 
Coast Guard from September 1999 to July 2000.  He stated that he enlisted in the regular 
Coast Guard in July 2000 where he served until his discharge in July 2001.  He stated 
that it is not fair to correct his DD Form 214 to show United States Coast Guard Reserve 
(USCGR).  
 
 
The applicant complained about the manner in which he was treated during his 
separation  physical.    He  stated  that  when  he  was  first  examined  for  separation  on 
February 26, 2001, a Dr. I noted that because the applicant was on limited duty for his 
ankle and because he had major depression, panic attacks, ADHD, and back and knee 
problems he required further evaluation prior to discharge.4  The applicant alleged that 
when  he  returned  to  his  unit  with  the  medical  evaluation  performed  by  Dr.  I,  the 
group's hospital services technician became upset and sent the separation examination 
documents  for  review  by  a  flight  surgeon.    He  stated  however,  that  a  health  service 
chief (E-7) actually signed the medical evaluation.  The applicant further charged that 
he  never  signed  the  following  statement  on  the  medical  examination  report:    "I  have 

                                                 
4   The record indicates that the applicant's fit for duty examination with respect to the ankle occurred on 
April 10, 2001 subsequent  to the February 2001 medical examination.   The  major depression and  panic 
disorder diagnoses also occurred after the February 2001 medical examination. 

been  informed  of  and  understand  the  provision  of  Article  15-29  of  the  Manual  of  the 
Medical  Department."5    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  aware  of  these 
inaccuracies until he reviewed his medical record after his discharge. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he would accept medical benefits for those conditions 
he incurred on active duty and were present when he was discharged.  "I was injured in 
the military and I feel that it is their duty to take care of my conditions." 
 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual lists condition not a disability as a basis 
for  a  convenience  of  the  government  discharge.    Examples  of  such  conditions  are 
enuresis and somnambulism.    
 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual 
 
 
Article  3.D.  states  that  an  Initial  Medical  Board  shall  be  convened  in  the 
following situations:  "1.  Detection of a physical impairment preexisting enlistment or 
appointment in the Coast Guard …  8.  In any situation where fitness for continuation of 
active duty is in question." 
 
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 
 
Article  5.B.2.  lists  the  following  as  personality  disorders:    Paranoid,  Schizoid, 
Schizotypal,  Obsessive  Compulsive,  Histrionic,  Dependent,  Antisocial,  Narcissistic, 
Avoidant, Borderline, and Personality disorder NOS (includes Passive-aggressive).  
 
 
Article  5.B.17  states  that  members  of  the  Coast  Guard  with  conditions  such  as 
ADHD  shall  be  processed  in  accordance  with  Article  12  of  the  Personnel  Manual.   
ADHD  is  described  in  this  section  as  a  "Disorder  Usually  First  Evident  in  Infancy, 
Childhood, or Adolescence." 
 
Separation Program Designator Handbook 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook authorizes the assignment 
of  an  RE-3G  or  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  with  the  JFV  separation  code.    The  SPD 
Handbook  states  that  the  JFV  separation  code  for  "condition,  not  a  disability"  is 
appropriate when there is an "[i]nvoluntary discharge directed by established directive 

                                                 
5   There are  no Articles 15 -29 of the Medical Manual.   

when  a  condition  not  a  physical  disability,  which  interferes  with  the  performance  of 
duty (Enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, obesity, fear of flying, et al.) [exists]."   
 
The SPD Handbook explains that a JFN separation code means an "Involuntary 
 
discharge  directed  by  established  directive  (No  board  entitlement)  for  physical 
disability which existed prior to entry on active duty and as established by a medical 
board."   
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 
2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the 
case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
3.  The Coast Guard admitted, and the Board agrees, that it committed an error 
by  discharging  the  applicant  without  having  convened  a  medical  board  to  ultimately 
rule  on  the  issue  of  whether  the  applicant's  panic  disorder  with  agoraphobia  existed 
prior to enlistment.  Article 3.D.1. of the Physical  Disability Evaluation System (PDES) 
Manual  states that a medical board shall be convened when there is a "[d]etection of a 
physical  impairment  preexisting  enlistment  or  appointment."    However,  this  Board 
finds that although a medical board was not convened in the applicant's case, he was 
afforded two other opportunities to object to his discharge, wherein he could have set 
forth his contentions that his panic disorder did not exist prior to his enlistment and/or 
that  he  was  suffering  from  other  disabling  conditions.    Those  opportunities  were  (1) 
when  the  CO  advised  him  in  April  2001  that  he  could  object  to  his  discharge  in  a 
written statement, and (2) when he waived his right to an ADB in June 2001.  Although 
these  due  process  rights  did  not  emanate  from  the  PDES  process,  they  were  avenues 
available to the applicant that could have been used to challenge the basis and reason 
for his discharge.  Had the applicant made objections to his discharge and claimed that 
he was disabled due to depression, panic disorder, and ankle instability, it would have 
been incumbent upon the Coast Guard to address his concerns.   

 
The  applicant  never  denied  that  he  was  aware  of  his  diagnoses  prior  to 
discharge.  In  his  April  2001  statement  not  objecting  to  his  discharge,  he  spent 
considerable  time  outlining  the  history  and  treatment  of  his  ankle  injury.    He  even 
stated that he was postponing surgery on his ankle and would seek a medical opinion 

from the DVA after his discharge.  However, at no time in the statement did he request 
a discharge by reason of physical disability or to remain on active duty for treatment.  
Rather than challenging ADHD as the basis for discharge before an ADB, the applicant 
waived  his  right  to  the  ADB  after  consulting  with  a  lawyer  about  his  options.  
Moreover, had the applicant chosen an ADB, he would have been entitled to a hearing 
and representation by a military counsel.  Therefore, this Board is persuaded that the 
applicant was provided with sufficient due process prior to his discharge to challenge 
the  basis  and  reason  for  his  separation.    He  has  not  offered  a  persuasive  reason  or 
explanation  why  he  should  have  another  opportunity to  challenge  his  discharge,  and 
the Board will not direct that he receive one.  Based upon the coversheet to the telefax of 
his ADB waiver to CGPC, the applicant was anxious to be discharged so that he could 
enter  college.      The  Board  finds  that  whatever  due  process  was  denied  the  applicant 
under  the  PDES  system  was  cured  through  the  due  process  afforded  to  him  with 
respect to his administrative discharge under Article 12 of the Personnel Manual. 

 
4.  In light of Finding 3., the only remaining issue before the Board is whether the 
applicant's DD Form 214 is in error by listing personality disorder as the reason for his 
discharge.    Under  Article  5.B.17.  of  the  Medical  Manual,  the  applicant's  diagnosed 
ADHD was a proper basis on  which to administratively separate him from the Coast 
Guard.  However, ADHD is not a personality disorder. See Articles 5.B.2 and 5.B.17. of 
the Medical Manual; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), 
4th edition, p. 85.   Therefore, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard that it committed 
an  error  by  listing  personality  disorder  as  the  reason  for  discharge  on  the  applicant's 
DD Form 214.  

 
5.  While the Board agrees that the reason for discharge stated on the applicant's 
DD Form 214 is erroneous and should be corrected, the Board does not agree with the 
Coast Guard, that the corrected reason should be "physical disability that existed prior 
to enlistment."  In this regard, neither the applicant nor the Coast Guard has presented 
any  evidence,  and  the  Board  is  aware  of  none,  which  lists  ADHD  as  a  condition  for 
which a  physical disability discharge may be granted.  The Medical Manual does not 
require  processing  for  ADHD  under  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System.  See 
Article 5.B.17 of the Medical Manual.  Therefore, listing disability that existed prior to 
enlistment as the reason for the applicant's discharge on the DD Form 214 would not be 
accurate  under  the  circumstances  of  this  case.    Moreover,  such  a  correction  would 
suggest that ADHD is a physical disability, which it is not. 

 
6.  Therefore, the Board finds that the more appropriate reason for the applicant's 
discharge is condition not a disability that interferes with the performance of duty, that 
JFV is the more appropriate separation code, and that convenience of the government, 
pursuant to Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual is the more appropriate separation 
authority.  The applicant in BCMR 2003-079 was discharged because of ADHD and his 
DD Form 214 listed personality disorder as the reason for discharge.  In that case, the 

BCMR  directed  the  applicant's  DD  Form  214  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was 
discharged  by  reason  of  condition,  not  a  physical  disability,  rather  than  personality 
disorder.   The Board finds that such relief is appropriate in this case. 

 
7. The Separation Program Designator Handbook permits either an RE-3G or an 
RE-4 reenlistment for a discharge by reason of condition not a physical disability.  The 
Board finds that an RE-3G (condition not a disability) is the correct reenlistment code in 
this case because no basis exists for awarding the applicant an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
The RE-3G is a code for which a waiver can be obtained.  However, the applicant would 
be required to submit proof that he is no longer suffering from this condition in order to 
reenlist in the military.  
 

8.  By way of explanation, Article 2.C.2.b. of the PDES Manual states, "The law 
that  provides  for  disability  .  .  .  separation  .  .  .  is  designed  to  compensate  a  member 
whose military service is terminated due to a physical disability that has rendered him 
or her unfit for continued duty."  Article 2.C.2.a. states that the sole standard in making 
determinations  of  physical  disability  as  a  basis  for  retirement  or  separation  shall  be 
unfitness to perform the duties of one's rank or rating. The applicant has not presented 
persuasive evidence that if a medical board had been convened prior to his discharge, 
he would have received a discharge by reason of physical disability.  In this regard, the 
Board notes the following with respect to the applicant's diagnosed medical conditions 
at the time of his discharge: 

 
a.    ADHD  and  compulsive/obsessive  personality  disorder  are  not  physical 
disabilities  and  therefore  could  not  be  the  basis  of  a  physical  disability  discharge.  
Article  2.A.7.  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  that  character  disorders  and  intelligence 
disorders  are  not  physical  disabilities,  although  they  may  result  in  a  member's 
administrative  separation  under  the  Personnel  Manual,  and  Article  5.B.17  of  the 
Medical Manual states that ADHD shall be processed in accordance with Article 12 of 
the Personnel Manual.   

 
b.  The applicant had a fit for full duty examination (limited duty medical board) 
related  to  his  ankle  prior  to  discharge  and  was  found  fit  for  duty,  although  he  was 
placed on limited duty for an eight month period and left with a recommendation for 
elective  surgery,  if  he  desired  to  gain  greater  stability  in  the  ankle.  However,  Article 
2.C.2.e.  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  that  "[a  member]  convalescing  from  a  disease  or 
injury which reasonably may be expected to improve so that he or she will be able to 
perform the duties of his . . . rank or rating in the near future may be found fit for duty."  
There  is  no  evidence  that  at  the  end  of  the  eight-month  limited  duty  period  the 
applicant was not fit for full duty.  The fact that he had surgery on the ankle three years 
after his discharge from the Coast Guard does not establish that at the end of his limited 
duty period he would not have been fit to perform the duties of his rate.   

  

c.    Although  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  major  depression  and  panic 
disorder, they were determined to be non-disabling.   According to 2.C.2.i. of the PDES 
Manual, impairments do not necessarily render the member unfit for military duty.  As 
in  this  case,  although  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  major  depression  and  panic 
disorder  prior  to  his  discharge,  the  psychiatrist  stated  that  the  conditions  were  non-
disabling.  There is no evidence in the record that the applicant was unfit for continued 
duty as a result of these conditions.   
 

d.  The fact that the applicant received a disability rating from the DVA for major 
depression and limited ankle motion does not mean that a medical board would have 
found him unfit for continued duty prior to his discharge.  In Lord v. United States, 2 
Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983), the Court of Federal Claims recognized the differences between 
the  DVA  and  the  Armed  Forces  disability  systems.    The  Court  stated,  "The  Veterans 
Administration  determines  to  what  extent  a  veteran's  earning  capacity  has  been 
reduced  as  a  result  of  specific  injuries  or  combination  of  injuries.  [Citation  omitted.]  
The  Armed  Forces,  on  the  other  hand,  determine  to  what  extent  a  member  has  been 
rendered  unfit  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  a 
physical  disability.  [Citation  omitted.]    Accordingly,  Veterans'  Administration  ratings 
are not determinative of issues involved in military disability retirement cases." 

 
e.    There  is  no  indication  in  the  record  that  any  of  the  other  conditions  (back, 
right knee, intestine) rated by the DVA as disabling caused the applicant to be unfit for 
duty while serving on active duty. 

 
9.  The applicant complained that certain improprieties occurred with respect to 
his medical examination for separation.  He stated that when he first reported for his 
medical  examination  in  February  2001  Dr.  I  noted  his  limited  duty  status,  his  major 
depression,  panic  attacks,  and  ADHD.    However,  each  of  these  events  or  diagnoses 
happened  after  the  February  2001  medical  examination.    The  limited  duty  board 
occurred in April 2001 and the other diagnoses were made in March 2001.  The Board is 
satisfied that the applicant received a proper medical examination for separation.  
 

10.  The Board will not order block 2 of the applicant's DD Form 214 corrected to 
show  USCGR.    The  applicant  did  not  request  this  change  and  has  objected  to  it.  
Moreover, the military record does not clearly establish to the satisfaction of the Board 
that  the  applicant  was  not  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard  at  the  time  of  his  most  recent 
discharge.   
 

11.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to partial relief.  
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      [ORDER AND SIGNATURE APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  ____________________  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record is granted in part.  Specifically, his DD Form 214 shall be corrected to show the 
following: 

 

Block  25  shall  be  corrected  to  show  Article  12-B-12  of  the  Personnel 

Manual as separation authority. 
 
 
the separation code. 

Block 26 shall be corrected to JFV (condition not a physical disability) as 

 

 
Block 27 shall be corrected to show RE-3G as the reenlistment code. 
 
Block 28 shall be corrected to show convenience of the government as the 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 
reason for separation. 
 
The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD Form 214. 
 
All other requests for relief are denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 George A. Weller 

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D.