DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2004-068 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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  February  12,  2004,  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 October 28, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  changing  the 
reason  for  his  Honorable  Discharge  from  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability 
(personality disorder) to discharge by reason of hardship.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  told  during  a  December  1,  1970  psychiatric 
evaluation that he would receive a hardship discharge.  He further stated the following: 
 

When I was called to the yeoman's office to pickup my discharge papers 
the E-5 yeoman presented me with a [G]eneral [D]ischarge, which I would 
not sign.  The yeoman sent for the CDR [commander] [H] and explained 
that  I  would  not  sign  these  papers.    CDR  [H]  told  him  it  was  to  be  an 
Honorable Discharge and to type it up as such.  I believe the yeoman did 
not change [section 11c. on the DD 214N] to reflect what Dr. [E] conveyed 

to me and to correlate with 13a [character of service] on the DD 214 N.  I 
am uncertain as to whether this was an inadvertent or deliberate mistake.   
 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On February 24, 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  
Subsequently, on December 1, 1970, he received a psychiatric evaluation because of his 
preoccupation with family/marital issues.  Dr. E noted in the psychiatric report that the 
applicant had been in the Coast Guard for approximately two years and that his family 
problems  started  after  he  became  married.    He  stated  that  the  applicant  was 
preoccupied with his marital situation and saw no solution to the problem other than to 
get  out  of  the  Coast  Guard.    The  report  indicated  that  the  applicant  had  given  some 
thought to "taking his son to go to Canada, to disappearing, [and] to suicide." 
 
 
Dr. E diagnosed the applicant as suffering from "Passive-aggressive personality, 
dependent  type"  and  "Situation  reaction,  manifested  chiefly  by  depression."    He 
recommended that the applicant be administratively discharged "as soon as possible."   
He stated that if the discharge were not granted that the applicant would likely act out 
or attempt suicide.  Dr. E stated in the report that "a hardship discharge would also be 
appropriate."   
 
Dr. E stated that there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects that were 
 
rated as disabilities under the Veteran Administrations Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 
and that the applicant was mentally responsible, both to distinguish right from wrong 
and to adhere to the right.   
 
 
On  December  14,  1970,  the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  advised  the 
applicant that he would be administratively processed for discharge due to a character 
and behavior disorder.  The applicant was advised that he could make a statement in 
his own behalf.  The applicant signed an endorsement on the December 14, 1970 letter 
advising the CO that he did not desire to make a statement. 
 
 
On  December  16,  1970,  the  CO  recommended  to  the  Commandant  that  he 
approve discharging the applicant under Article 12-B-10(b)(2) of the Personnel Manual.  
The CO stated that the applicant's performance had been above average and had only 
began to decline when the applicant became preoccupied with his family problems after 
returning from a deployment.    
 
On  December  31,  1970,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  captain's  mast  (non-
 
judicial  punishment)  for  an  unauthorized  absence  from  December  21,  1970  until 

On  January  7,  1971,  the  Commandant  approved  the  applicant's  discharge  by 

December 31, 1970.  His punishment included restriction to the cutter for 30 days and 
extra duties for 30 days.   
 
 
reason of unsuitability under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual.  
 
 
On January 8, 1971, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard with an 
Honorable  Discharge  due  to  unsuitability  under  Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, with an RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment) reenlistment code. 
 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On May 28, 2004, the Judge Advocate (TJAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief as recommended by 
the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC recommended that 
the reason for the applicant's discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government 
by reason of condition, not a disability that interferes with performance of duty. 

 
With  respect  to  the  applicant's  contention  that  he  should  have  received  a 
hardship discharge, TJAG stated that the applicant has not offered sufficient evidence to 
show that he qualified for or requested a hardship discharge.  However, he stated after 
reviewing  the  applicant's  file,  he  supports  changing  the  reason  for  the  applicant's 
discharge  to  "Convenience  of  the  Government"  because  it  more  appropriately 
characterizes the reason for discharge.   

 
TJAG  attached  a  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC) as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.  He stated that he adopted 
the facts and analysis provided by CGPC in that memorandum.  CGPC stated that the 
record does not support the applicant's allegation that he should have been discharged 
due  to  hardship.    He  stated  that  according  to  Article  12.B.7  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Manual that was in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, members 
applying  for  such  a  hardship  discharge  were  required  to  submit  a  request  in  writing 
accompanied  by  two  different  affidavits  substantiating  the  hardship  and  establishing 
that the hardship occurred after the member entered the Service.  CGPC stated that  

 
[t]here  is  no  evidence  that  the  Applicant  ever  requested  a  hardship 
discharge  during  the  separation  process,  and  with  the  exception  of  the 
doctor's  statement  that  a  hardship  discharge  would  be  appropriate,  the 
available record does not indicate that the applicant met the criteria for a 
hardship discharge.   
 

CGPC stated the application was not timely, but indicated that it would be in the 
interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations.    With 
respect  to  the  merits  of  the  application,  CGPC  stated  that  although  the  applicant's 
unsuitability discharge was appropriate under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual 
in effect at the time, it is in the interest of justice to change the reason for the applicant's 
discharge to one denoting discharge for the Convenience of the Government by reason 
of  condition,  not  a  disability  interfering  with  the  performance  of  duty.    According  to 
CGPC, Article 12-B-6 (Convenience of the Government) of the Personnel Manual, then 
in effect, did not provide for condition, not a disability interfering with the performance 
of duty, as a basis for a Convenience of the Government discharge.  However, CGPC 
stated that after the applicant's discharge, the Personnel Manual was amended to add 
condition, not a physical disability interfering with the performance of duty, as a basis 
for a Convenience of the Government discharge under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel 
Manual.  

 
CGPC  attached  to  his  memorandum  a  note  from  the  Head  of  the  Enlisted 
Separations  Branch  who  stated  that  the  "diagnosis  given  by  the  physician  meets  the 
description of personality disorder and adjustment disorder.   But [there is] not enough 
documentation to certify [the diagnosis]."   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

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

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

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10 

United States Code.   It was not timely. 

 
 
2.    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.  
 
 
3.  The Board may still consider an untimely application on the merits, however, 
if it finds it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In deciding whether it is in the interest 
to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should take into consideration the reasons 
for and length of the delay and the likelihood of the applicant's success on the merits of 
his claim. See Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 
 
4. The applicant's correction application was submitted approximately 30 years 
beyond the three-year statute of limitations.  Although the applicant claimed that he did 
not  discover  the  alleged  error  until  he  received  and  reviewed  a  copy  of  his  military 
record in August 2001, he should have discovered the error on his DD Form 214N at the 
time  of  his  discharge  in  1971.    It  clearly  states  on  the  DD  Form  214N  that  he  was 
discharged due to unsuitability.  The applicant offered no other explanation of why it 
would be in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in his case.  
 

5.  Although the Board is not persuaded by the applicant's reason for not filing 
his  application  sooner,  the  Board  must  also  consider  the  likelihood  of  the  applicant's 
success on the merits of his claim in deciding whether the statute of limitations should 
be waived.  The Board finds that it is likely that the applicant will prevail in obtaining 
some corrections to his military record.  In this regard, the Board notes that the Coast 
Guard  found  merit  in  the  application  and  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  partial 
relief to the applicant.  Under these circumstances, the Board finds that that it is in the 
interest of justice to waive the statute and to consider the claim in its entirety.   

 
6.  The Coast Guard did not commit an error by discharging the applicant due to 
unsuitability under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual, which was in effect at the 
time of the applicant's discharge. However, the Board further finds that the discharge 
by  reason  of  unsuitability  (personality  disorder)  constitutes  an  injustice  in  the 
applicant's  record.    The  Coast  Guard  stated,  and  the  Board  agrees,  that  under  the 
current  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant  would  probably  have  qualified  for  a 
Convenience  of  the  Government  discharge  due  to  condition,  not  a  disability  that 
interferes  with  the  performance  of  duty.    According  to  CGPC,  a  discharge  on  this 
ground  was  not  available  to  the  applicant  in  1971.  The  Board  further  agrees  with  the 
Coast Guard that a discharge by reason of condition, not a disability more appropriately 
characterizes  the  circumstances  under  which  the  applicant  was  discharged.  Although 
the  psychiatrist  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering  from  a  personality  disorder,  he 
also stated that the applicant's condition was a reaction to his marital situation, and he 
indicated that a "hardship discharge would also be appropriate."  The Board notes that 
nothing  in  the  record  indicates  that  the  Coast  Guard  inquired  about  or  advised  the 
applicant on the appropriateness of a hardship discharge, which probably explains why 
the applicant did not apply for one.  In this regard, the Board notes that the applicant 
was a solid performer until he began experiencing marital/family problems.    

 
7.    Although  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  told  that  he  would  receive  a 
hardship  discharge,  nothing  in  the  record  supports  his  allegation,  except  Dr.  E's 
statement in the medical report that a "hardship discharge would also be appropriate."  
Dr. E's statement clearly suggests that unsuitability due to a personality disorder was 
also  a  basis  for  discharge.  Moreover,  the  applicant  never  applied  for  a  hardship 
discharge,  which  would  have  required  that  he  submit  two  different  affidavits 

explaining  his  hardship.      Since  the  applicant  never  requested  or  submitted  the 
necessary evidence to support a hardship discharge, this Board can make no decision 
on his claim that he should have been discharged by reason of hardship.  On the other 
hand,  the  Board  finds  nothing  in  the  military  record  indicating  that  the  Coast  Guard 
advised the applicant on the procedure for applying for a hardship discharge.  We do 
not address whether the Coast Guard had a duty to counsel the applicant on applying 
for  a  hardship  discharge,  but  we  do  note  that  the  failure  to  do  so  contributes  to  our 
finding that the applicant's unsuitability (personality disorder) discharge constitutes an 
injustice.   

 
 
8.  The  applicant  did  not  challenge  his  RE-4  (not  eligible  for  reenlistment) 
reenlistment  code.    However,  it  is  the  Board's  policy  to  review  the  reenlistment  code 
when it corrects the reason for discharge. The current Separation Program Designator 
Code (SPD) Handbook authorizes either an RE-3G or an RE-4 for a discharge by reason 
of  condition,  not  a  disability.  The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant's  RE-4  reenlistment 
code should be upgraded to an RE-3G (eligible for enlistment except for disqualifying 
factor: condition, not a disability).   The RE-4 is inconsistent with the applicant's average 
to above average performance record and the lack of any disciplinary problems, except 
for one minor infraction. 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.  Any attempt by the applicant to reenlist with an RE-
3G would require that he obtain a waiver. 
 
 

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

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of former XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction 
of his military record is granted in part.  His record shall be corrected to show that he 
was discharged from the Coast Guard under Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual, 
for the Convenience of the Government, by reason of "condition, not a disability."   His 
record shall be further corrected to show RE-3G as his reenlistment code.   

 
No other relief is granted.  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer