DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-096 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 the 
case on April 15, 2004, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and mili-
tary records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 13, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant—who  received  an  honorable  discharge  for  misconduct  from  the 
Coast Guard on April 14, 1989—asked the Board to correct his record to reflect that he 
was discharged, not for misconduct, but for being “unable to adapt to military life.”  He 
alleged that he discovered this error in September 2003. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  has  been  diagnosed  with  bipolar  disorder  and 
major depression.  He alleged that, while in the Coast Guard, he was never treated or 
diagnosed with any mental condition but that he has had these problems since he was a 
child.  He alleged that in the Coast Guard, he “was treated with miscontent due to the 
fact that the leadership didn’t understand what [he] was going through.” 
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  dated  April  21, 
2003, from a social worker at xxxxxxxxxxxxx, a “psycho-social rehabilitation program” 
in  xxxxxxxxxx.    The  social  worker  stated  that  the  applicant  “has  a  psychiatric  history 
dating back to childhood” and that he became a member of Fellowship House in 1998.  

She  stated  that  he  has  been  diagnosed  with  “Major  Depression,  recurrent,  with 
psychotic features” and has been receiving counseling from her since February 6, 2002.  
The social worker stated that at nine years of age, the applicant witnessed his mother’s 
attempted suicide and was put in foster care.  He lived at xxxxxxxxxxx, an institution 
for  boys,  in  New  York  and,  while  there,  was  hospitalized  for  psychiatric  reasons  and 
prescribed Mellaril.”  She stated that he was regularly beaten and bullied and dropped 
out of high school in the 10th grade but completed his GED.  She stated that at the time, 
he was  unaware that  he was  suffering from “complex post-traumatic stress disorder” 
(PTSD).  She stated that when he enlisted in the Coast Guard and began boot camp, his 
PTSD  was  exacerbated,  and  he  “spoke  to  his  ‘chief’  regarding  his  experiences  and 
reactions  in  boot  camp.”    However,  he  was  provided  no  professional  evaluation  or 
treatment. 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  a  letter  dated  March  17,  2004,  from  an  advanced 
 
registered nurse practitioner, who wrote that the applicant had been seeking psychiatric 
care from a doctor since April 15, 2003, and that he had been diagnosed with “Bipolar 
Disorder with Mixed Features.”  She stated that he was taking Neurontin and Klonopin, 
and that he was first hospitalized for psychiatric reasons as a child in 1985. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On  December  7,  1987,  when  he  was  20  years  old,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the 
Coast Guard for four years.  He admitted to having been arrested in xxxxxxxxxx in 1984 
and  given  three  years  of  probation  for  “joyriding  in  a  stolen  car.”    Upon  completing 
boot camp, the applicant was advanced from seaman recruit (SR) to fireman apprentice 
and assigned to a cutter. 
 
 
On April 19, 1988, the applicant was counseled about his lack of military bearing 
and  “lack  of  respect  for  his  fellow  non-petty  officers”  while  enrolled  in  the  Coast 
Guard’s  “Basic  Educational  Enrichment  Program.”    He  was  warned  that  continued 
misbehavior  would  lead  to  disenrollment.    The  next  day,  he  was  disenrolled  for 
disobeying the rules and committing numerous violations since the day before.  
 
On July 20, 1988, the applicant pleaded guilty in state court to filing a false report 
 
of a stolen vehicle and driving without a license on June 2, 1988.  He was fined $200 by 
the court and counseled by his Coast Guard superiors. 
 
 
On September 15, 1988, the applicant was taken to mast for being absent without 
leave (AWOL) for two hours on August 24, 1988.  He was awarded 30 days of restric-
tion and 30 days of extra duties to run consecutively, with 23 days of each to be sus-
pended  for  six  months.    The  suspension  was  vacated  on  September  24,  1988,  for  dis-
obeying a lawful order by watching television in the wardroom after taps on September 
21, 1988. 

On September 22, 1988, the applicant was counseled about his failure to shave. 

On January 3, 1989, the applicant was counseled about his “lack of care for his 

On December 5, 1988, the applicant was counseled about failing to get a haircut, 

 
 
 
On October 5, 1988, the applicant was taken to mast for having disobeyed a law-
 
ful order on September 21, 1988.  As punishment he was reduced in rate to SR.  In addi-
tion, he was counseled about his grooming, conduct, lack of respect for others, and need 
of supervision. 
 
 
On  October  6,  1988,  the  applicant  was  counseled  about  his  “frequent  involve-
ment of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.”  He was placed on 
probation  for  six  months  and  warned  that  further  misconduct  would  lead  to  his  dis-
charge. 
 
On  November  2,  1988,  the  applicant  crashed  his  car.    The  investigating  police 
 
officer  noted  that  he  had  been  drinking  but  did  not  perform  a  blood  alcohol  content 
(BAC)  test.    The  applicant  was  cited  for  driving  with  a  restricted  license  and  careless 
driving.  While being treated for cuts on his face and chest at a local hospital, his BAC 
was  determined  to  be  0.132.    He  was  convicted  of  both  misdemeanor  charges  on 
November 22, 1988. 
 
 
as ordered. 
 
 
personal appearance” and lack of respect for his superiors. 
 
 
On  February  8,  1989,  the  applicant  was  taken  to  mast  for  having  scratched  his 
name on a control booth console, contrary to a direct order, and for trying to cover it up 
with  spray  paint  on  December  24,  1988;  and  for  having  failed  to  report  for  duty  as 
ordered on January 17, 1989.  He was awarded 45 days restriction to the cutter and 45 
days of extra duty “to run consecutively.” 
 
 
On  February  21,  1989,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  informed  him 
that  he  had  initiated  action  to  separate  him  for  misconduct  with  an  honorable  dis-
charge.  The CO noted that since being put on probation, the applicant had received two 
civilian convictions and a captain’s mast.  The applicant acknowledged in writing that 
he  had  been  notified  of  the  proposed  discharge.    He  waived  his  right  to  submit  a 
statement  in  his  own  behalf  and  stated  that  he  did  not  object  to  being  discharged.  
Moreover, he specifically asked to be discharged.  On the same day, the CO forwarded 
to  the  Commandant  his  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s  honorable  discharge  for 
misconduct  due  to  frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable  nature  with  military  and 
civil authorities. 
 

 
On March 14, 1989, the Commandant ordered that the applicant be discharged 
for  misconduct  within  30  days  in  accordance  with  Article  12-B-18  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  On April 14, 1989, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of mis-
conduct with an RE-4 reenlistment code (ineligible). 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 17, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.  TJAG 
stated  that  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  due  to  untimeliness  because  he 
offered no explanation for his delay in submitting his application and because a cursory 
review of the record indicates that it lacks merit.  TJAG argued that the applicant’s dis-
charge is amply supported by his record of misconduct.   

 
TJAG adopted the facts and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case by 
the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC alleged that the applicant appar-
ently never complained of mental problems while in the Service and received full due 
process in being discharged.  In addition, CGPC noted that even if the applicant had a 
mental  disorder,  the  disability  statutes  “do  not  preclude  disciplinary  separation.”  
CGPC stated that disability evaluations are normally suspended if a member is being 
discharged for misconduct. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 18, 2004, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant responded on August 
23,  2004.    He  submitted  a  letter  from  a  social  worker  from  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  who 
certified that the applicant lived in a group home from 1984 to 1987 and that on July 2, 
1985, he was hospitalized as a result of having suicidal ideations.  He also submitted a 
copy of a medical record dated April 15, 2003, which shows that he was being treated 
for bipolar disorder and has a long-standing mental illness. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Under Article 12-B-18.b.(6) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1989, the Com-
mandant could direct a member’s discharge for misconduct due to “frequent involve-
ment of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.”  Under Article 12-B-
18.c., prior to initiating such a discharge, the member’s command was required to coun-
sel the member and initiate a six-month probationary period.  However, “commanding 
officers  are  authorized  to  recommend  discharge  at  any  time  during  the  probationary 
period if the member is not making an effort to overcome the deficiency.” 
 

 
Under Article 12-B-18.e., members with less than six years of active service who 
were being recommended for an honorable administrative discharge due to misconduct 
were  entitled  to  (a)  be  informed  of  the  reason  for  the  recommendation  and  (b)  be 
afforded an opportunity to make a statement in writing. 
 

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: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552. 
 
2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  The applicant 
alleged that he discovered the error in his record in 2003, which is apparently when he 
was  diagnosed  with  bipolar  disorder.    Therefore,  it  appears  that  he  accepted  his  dis-
charge for misconduct as accurate and fair until he learned that he was suffering from a 
mental  illness  and  may  have  been  suffering  from  mental  illness  while  in  the  Service.  
The preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that the application was filed 
within three years of the date the applicant discovered the alleged error in his record.  
Therefore, although the application was filed approximately fourteen years after his dis-
charge, it was timely in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 

 
3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  mentally ill  while  in  the  Coast  Guard 
and should have been discharged for being “unable to adapt to military life,” instead of 
for misconduct.  However, while the applicant was clearly a troubled youth and once 
threatened  to  commit  suicide  as  a  teenager,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  applicant’s 
record that he was diagnosed as mentally ill during his enlistment or unable to tell right 
from wrong and adhere to the right.  Instead, his record contains documentation of a 
series  of  infractions  reflective  of  consistent  disrespect  for  authority  and  irresponsible 
behavior.  The fact that fourteen years later he has been diagnosed with depression and 
bipolar  disorder  does  not  persuade  the  Board  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  holding 
him accountable for his misconduct in 1989.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board 
must presume that a veteran’s records are correct and that Coast Guard officials “have 
carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  Arens v. United States, 
969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979); 33 
C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  The applicant’s record indicates that he received due process in being 
placed on probation and then discharged.  The record also contains ample evidence of 
the  “frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable  nature  with  civil  or military  authorities” 
that justified his discharge for misconduct under Article 12-B-18.b.(6) of the Personnel 
Manual.  The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in discharging him for 
misconduct.  

 
4. 

 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

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

military record is denied.   
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young