DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-136 
 
  
   

 

 
 

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  June  4,  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 March 31, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The  applicant,  who  apparently  had  prior  active  and  reserve  Naval  service  and 
prior National Guard service, enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 6, 1997.  He was 
honorably discharged on July 1, 1997, by reason of "involuntary discharge directed by 
established  authority,"  with  a  JFX  (personality  disorder)  separation  code,  and  with  a 
RE-3G  (eligible  for  reenlistment,  except  for  disqualifying  factor  personality  disorder) 
reenlistment  code.    His  most  recent  period  of  active  duty  totaled  five  months  and 
twenty-six days.  However, at the time of discharge he had served a total of four years, 
five months, and twenty-six days on active duty, most of which was Naval service. 
  
 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD Form 214 to show that he was 
voluntarily discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of hardship; that his separation 
code be changed to MDB (hardship); and that his reenlistment code be changed to one 
corresponding with a hardship discharge.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that the reason listed for discharge on his DD 214 is unjust 

 
 
because it does not reflect his family hardship at the time of his discharge.  
 
 
 
The applicant stated that he joined the Coast Guard in 1997 to provide a better 
future for his family, but it did not go as he and his wife thought it would.  He stated 
that  the  pay  was  one  of  the  biggest  problems.    He  claimed  that  his  first  check  after 
joining the Coast Guard did not cover the cost of his housing or the household expenses 
of his wife who remained in Arizona.  He submitted a March 18, 1997, letter from his 
CO  explaining  to  the  applicant's  wife  that  the  Coast  Guard  was  having  difficulty 
starting the applicant's BAQ  (basic allowance for quarters) with dependents pay.   
 
 
The applicant stated that after two months in the Coast Guard, his wife thought 
he had abandoned her and their two children; so, she filed for divorce.  He stated that 
he was depressed over possibly losing everything he had worked for.  He stated that he 
was allowed to go home to Arizona on leave and attempt to work things out with his 
wife.    After  he  returned  to  his  command,  he  fell  into  a  depressive  state.    He  further 
stated the following: 
 

I wanted to keep my responsibilities, job, possible future, but my family 
was  pulling  at  me  hard.    I  went  to  the  physician  on  ship  and  requested 
counseling.    I  went to  a  private  psychologist.    During  these  sessions  my 
depression and drive to return home took over and was speaking for me 
instead  of  what  I  had  truly  felt  inside  and  what  I  believed  in.    I  was 
messed up because I had never been tugged and pulled in every direction.  
My  wife  was  pressuring  me  every  other  day  on  the  phone  to  do 
something to get . . . home.  That's not what I wanted; I wanted to stay in 
the service.   
 
I  was  stuck  and  we  were  sinking  fast.    I  said  something  in  those 
counseling sessions that I shouldn't have, but one clear fact remains  . . . 
that there were no tests given to support what was said in those sessions. 
 
I  returned  home  after  being  discharged  to  salvage  what  was  left  of  the 
marriage,  but  in  the  end  it  didn't  matter;  I  lost  everything  within  six 
months  after  getting  off  active  duty.    Things  were  beyond  repair.    She 
hated the fact that the Coast Guard ruined our lives and our family.  I got 
off active duty in June 97 and in November 97 we were divorced. 
 
I  have  been  penalized  enough.    I  had  a  clean  military  DD  214  from  the     
U. S. Navy with a Reentry code of RE-R1 . . . before the Coast Guard, and I 

have  one  now  with  the  Michigan  Army  National  Guard  even  after  the 
Coast Guard.  I spent a year as a requirement away from the armed forces.  
I  finally  joined  the  Michigan  Army  National  Guard  in  1999  after  being 
cleared  with  normal  mental  status  and  no  signs  or  symptoms  of  what  I 
was  discharged  for  by  a  [Coast  Guard]  psychologist  .  .  .  as  part  of  the 
waiver to join.   

   
 
In  1999,  the  applicant  joined  the  Michigan  Army  National  Guard.    He 
subsequently applied for a full-time Active Guard Reserve position within the Michigan 
Army National Guard, but his application was returned to him without action.  On May 
24, 2001, the Adjutant General for the Michigan National Guard told the applicant that 
his application was returned for the following reason: 
 

[I]nvoluntary  removal  from  a  unit  for  cause  is  considered  to  be  a 
nonwaiveable disqualification for entry into AGR program.   Your latest 
DD Form 214 reflects a RE Code of RE3G, with a narrative REASON FOR 
SEPARATION  of    "INVOLUNTARY  DISCHARGE  DIRECTED  BY 
ESTABLISHED DIRECTIVE." 
 
Unless the current regulation changes, you will not be considered eligible 
for future AGR positions. 

 

After the Adjutant General stated that he did not have the authority to waive the 
RE-3G  reenlistment  code  or  change  the  reason  for  the  applicant's  discharge,  the 
applicant applied to the Coast Guard Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade in 
his  reenlistment  code.    On  November  5,  2001,  a  lieutenant  with  the  DRB  told  the 
applicant  that  his  request  to  change  his  reenlistment  code  did  not  fall  within  the 
parameters  of  the  DRB.    The  LT  told  the  applicant  to  take  his  DD  Form  214  to  any 
military recruiter and they could instruct the applicant on what specific documentation 
would  be  required  for  the  applicant  to  qualify  for  reenlistment.    The  applicant  stated 
that this advice led to a dead end. 
 
 
The  DRB  received  a  second  application  on behalf  of  the  applicant  requesting  a 
change in the reason for his separation and his RE-3G reenlistment code.  In an April 30, 
2003  letter,  the  supervisor  of  the  Discharge Review  Board  wrote the  applicant  stating 
that  although  CGPC  had  directed  that  the  applicant  receive  a  discharge  by  reason  of 
personality  disorder,  the  applicant  actually  received  an  "involuntary  discharge 
established  by  directive."    The  supervisor  stated  that  the  DRB  would  not  change  the 
reason for discharge to personality disorder because it would be more negative than the 
reason  already  listed on  the  DD  Form  214.    The  supervisor  further  stated,  "You  were 
given  the  RE-3G  reentry  code  because  at  the  time  of  your  separation  you  had  a 
condition  interfering  with  performance  of  duty,  therefore,  with  verification  that  the 
condition no longer exists, a recruiter may request a waiver for your reentry." 

The  applicant  submitted  evidence  that  he 

 
 
 The  applicant  stated  that  he  has  been  a  part  of  the  armed  forces  for 
approximately  13  years  and  is  currently  a  member  of  the  Michigan  Army  National 
Guard.   Before he was accepted into the Michigan Army National Guard, the applicant 
underwent  a  mental  examination.    On  January  13,  1999,  the  physician  examining  the 
applicant  described  the  applicant's  mental  status  as  normal  with  no  current 
psychological  problems.      He  found  the  applicant  qualified  to  join  the  Michigan 
National Guard.  In addition, the physician wrote that the applicant had served for four 
years on active duty in the Navy, then four years in the Navy reserve,1 and then three 
years  in  the  National  Guard  Reserve  for  a  total  of  approximately  eleven  years  prior 
service before joining the Coast Guard.   Since joining the Michigan National Guard, the 
applicant has undergone a periodic examination and was found qualified for retention.   
 
in  receipt  of  an  Office 
 
Professions/Administrative Assistants AA degree; that he is currently employed by the 
State  of  Michigan  in  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State;  and  that  he  is  involved  in 
several  community  organizations.    He  also  submitted  several  very  complimentary 
references as to his character and work.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  has  accomplished  the  following  as  part  of  the 
Michigan  National  Guard:  mobilized  in  support  of Operation  Sinai,  Egypt  in  October 
2003,  promoted  to  staff  sergeant  (E-6)  in  February  2003,  received  the  Army 
Commendation Medal for performance of duties to ensure the company was prepared 
for the National Guard Bureau CLRT inspection, and permitted his picture to be used 
on a recruiting poster for the National Guard. 
 
 
The applicant submitted a DD Form 214 from the Army Reserve National Guard 
showing that he served for nine months and twelve days on active duty from October 
29, 2003 to August 10, 2004 in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.  He stated that while the 
Coast Guard DD Form 214 does not prevent him from being recalled to active duty or 
being  deployed,  it  does  prevent  him  from  joining  the Active  Guard  Reserve  program 
because the position is through the State of Michigan.   
 

is 

The applicant stated that he would like to have an active duty position with the 
Active  Guard  Reserve  Program,  but  he  needs  to  have the  reason for  his  Coast  Guard 
discharge changed, as well as his RE-3G reenlistment code.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE COAST GUARD RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 6, 1997.   Subsequently, on 
April  8,  1997,  he  was  the  subject  of  a  medical  board  (MB).    The  MB  diagnosed  the 

                                                 
1   The applicant's DD Form 214 from the Navy shows that he was released into the Naval Reserve.   

applicant  as  suffering  from  "major  depression,  moderate,  first  episode"  that  did  not 
exist prior to enlistment.  The MB recommended that the applicant be placed on limited 
duty for six months and kept at a shore station so that he could continue in individual 
psychotherapy and have his medications monitored.  The MB report indicated that the 
applicant  was  expected  to  return  to  full  duty  within  six  months  and  reported  the 
applicant's then current history as follows: 
 

This service member is sent from his home base in Michigan for complaint 
that he does not show emotions, does not communicate well, has memory 
lapses, has difficulty concentrating, isolates himself, has a lack of friends 
and difficulty trusting others.  He perceives nagging when others speak to 
him.  Two weeks prior to evaluation, he became overwhelmed when his 
wife  served  him  with  divorce  papers  and  he  seemed  to  have  a 
"breakdown,"  with  crying,  bad  dreams,  depressed  mood  and  a  suicidal 
plan  consisting  of  intention  to  obtain  a  rifle,  isolate  himself  and  shoot 
himself.    Sleep  was  reported  to  be  alright  and  his  appetite  diminished 
with a reported loss in weight.  At the time of evaluation, the patient was 
not suicidal and was not homicidal.  According to the patient, the origin of 
his problems is in the fact he rejoined the  military and left his wife and 
two  children  in  Arizona  where  they  had  been  residing.    [The  wife]  was 
reluctant to come [with him] because of the cold weather and because of 
that  and  financial  problems  she  finally  had  [the  applicant]  served  with 
divorce papers.  The [applicant] exhibited the aforementioned symptoms 
and was referred by his command to a psychologist in the area . . .  who 
evaluated  him  and  found  him  to  be  depressed.    [The  psychologist] 
referred the [applicant] to his physician who recommended Paxil, which 
the patient is now taking at a level of 20 mg a day orally.  The [applicant] 
states  there  is  some  improvement  and  he  has  benefited  from  the  initial 
encounters  with  the  psychologist  and  is  no  longer  suicidal.    Because  of 
these problems his  command allowed him to stay ashore when the ship 
went to sea for the next 1-1/2 months.   
 

  * 

 

 

* 

* 
 

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION:  Mental status examination revealed 
a  tall  and  lanky  young  man  in  uniform  but  with  a  sober  and  detached 
countenance.  He  was  responsive  and  cooperative  and  fully  oriented.  
There was no evidence of thought disorder and he denied hallucinations 
or delusional thinking.  His mood was depressed and the affect showed 
some mobility.  His judgment and insight were good. 

 
 
The military record indicates that after the MB the applicant had two visits with 
a  psychologist,  who  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering  from  major  depressive 

disorder,  attention-deficit/hyperactivity  disorder  (ADHD),  NOS  (not  otherwise 
specified),  and  anti-social  personality  disorder  (R/O  (rule  out)).    The  report  from  his 
last  visit  on  May  12,  1997,  stated  that  the  applicant  "no  longer  expresses  suicidal 
thoughts, feelings, or impulses."  
 
 
On  May  27,  1997,  the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  informed  the 
applicant that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Coast 
Guard for unsuitability due to personality disorders.  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 concurred with the recommendation and did not intend to 
submit a statement.   
 

On May 27, 1997, the applicant's CO recommended that the Commander, Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), discharge the applicant by reason of unsuitability 
due  to  personality  disorders.    He  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been  diagnosed  with 
major depressive disorder, ADHD, and an indefinite diagnosis of anti-social personality 
disorder.  
 
 
Guard by reason of unsuitability with a JFX (personality disorder) separation code. 
 
 
The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  July  1,  1997  by  reason  of 
"involuntary  discharge  directed  by  established  directive,"  with  a  JFX  separation  code 
and an RE-3G reenlistment code. 
 

On June 3, 1997, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged from the Coast 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  19,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  as 
recommended  by  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  in  a 
memorandum attached as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.  However, the JAG did 
not agree with CGPC that the application was not timely.  
 

The JAG stated that absent strong evidence to the contrary, government officials 
are  presumed  to  have  carried  out  their  duties  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.  
Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992).  He stated that the applicant offered 
no  evidence  to  support  his  claim  that  he  was  improperly  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard or that he was treated in a way that shocks the sense of justice.  Rather, he stated 
that a policy of the Michigan National Guard prevents him from getting a full-time job 
with them based on his performance in the Coast Guard.  The JAG stated that although 
that is unfortunate, it doesn't work to transform the Coast Guard's actions into anything 
but  what  they  were,  an  appropriate  response  to  the  applicant's  medically  diagnosed 

mental  health  issues.    He  asserted  that  the  applicant  was  afforded  appropriate  due 
process and that his administrative separation was proper.  
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  a  personality  disorder, 
 
which  was  disqualifying  for  enlistment  under  Article  5-B-2  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
CGPC stated that any member found to have a personality disorder shall be processed 
for  separation  in  accordance  with  Article  12  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    CGPC  further 
stated  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  applicant  requested  a  hardship 
discharge  and  noted  that  the  applicant  agreed  with  his  discharge  by  reason  of 
personality disorder and declined to submit a statement objecting to it.   Accordingly, 
CGPC recommended that the Board deny relief.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 20, 2004, a copy of the Coast Guard's views was sent to the applicant 
and  he  was  provided  30  days  to  submit  a  reply.    On  November  19,  2004,  the  Chair 
granted the applicant a 60-day extension to submit his reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.   
 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

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. 

 
Article  12.B.16  provides  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to 

personality disorders as listed in the Medical Manual. 
 
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  either  JFV  or 
KFV  as  the  separation  code  for  a  discharge  by  reason  of  condition  not  a  physical 
disability  that  interferes  with  the  performances  of  duties.    The  JFV  separation  code 
means that the separation was involuntary as directed by established directive and the 
KFV  separation  code  means  the  discharge  was  voluntary  as  allowed  by  established 
directive.  It also authorizes the assignment of an RE-3G or an RE-4 reenlistment code 
with the JFV or KFV separation code.   
 

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.  The application was timely.  An applicant has fifteen years from 
the date of discharge to apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of 
or change of reason for his discharge.  According to Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F. 
3rd. 738 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the BCMR's three year statute of limitations begins to run at 
the  conclusion  of  DRB  proceedings  for  an  applicant  who  is  required  to  exhaust 
administrative remedies by applying to the DRB before seeking redress from the BCMR.  
The  BCMR  requires  exhaustion  of  administrative  remedies.    The  applicant  applied  to 
the  DRB  approximately  four  years  after  his  discharge,  and  the  DRB  advised  the 
applicant on November 5, 2001 that it would not act on his application. Therefore, the 
applicant's BCMR application, received by the Board on October 20, 2003, was timely. 

 
2. Although the applicant requested that his record be corrected to show he was 
discharged  by  reason  of  hardship,  the  Board  agrees  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  no 
evidence exists in the record that the applicant ever requested a discharge by reason of 
hardship prior to his discharge from the Coast Guard. Moreover, the evidence of record 
does not establish that the applicant met the requirements for a discharge by reason of 
hardship at the time of his separation. Article 12.D.2.4. of the Personnel Manual states 
that  "Undue  hardship  does  not  necessarily  exist  solely  because  of  altered  present  or 
expected income or because the member is separated from his or her family and must 
suffer the inconveniences normally incident to a sea-going military service."  Examples 
of meritorious hardship cases provided by Article 12.D.2.3. are (1) the service member is 
required to provide support and care in the death or disability of a family member; (2) 
the  service  member's  family's  hardship  is  more  severe  than  the  normal  hardships 
encountered by other Coast Guard families and dependents; (3) the hardship discharge 
will  eliminate  or  materially  alleviate  a  long-term  or  permanent  condition;  or  (4)  the 
discharge is the only readily available means to alleviate the hardship.  The applicant's 
situation was one of a shortage of finances and of marital discord.  Many Coast Guard 
families experience these conditions.  Therefore, the applicant has submitted insufficient 

evidence to show that the Coast Guard committed an error by not discharging him by 
reason of hardship.   
 
3.  Although "involuntary discharge directed by established directive" is listed on 
 
the applicant's DD Form 214 as the narrative reason for his discharge, no such narrative 
reason exits in the Personnel Manual or in the SPD Handbook.   It is clear from the CO's 
memorandum  requesting  permission  to  discharge  the  applicant,  that  personality 
disorder was the reason for his discharge.  Moreover, CGPC approved the applicant's 
discharge by reason of personality disorder.  The separation authority, Article 12.B.16. 
of the Personnel Manual and the JFX separation code support personality disorder as 
the  reason  for  the  applicant's  discharge.    Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  listing 
"involuntary  discharge  directed  by  established  directive"  rather  than  personality 
disorder  as  the  narrative  reason  for  the  applicant's  discharge  was  an  administrative 
error. 
 
 
4.    Personality  disorder  is  a  proper  reason  for  an  administrative  separation,  if 
supported  by  the  evidence.    Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes 
discharge  by  reason  of  personality  disorder  for  those  conditions  listed  as  such  in 
Chapter  5  of  the  Medical  Manual.    The  applicant's  CO's  recommendation  for  the 
applicant's  discharge  was  based  on  the  applicant's  diagnoses  of  major  depression, 
ADHD,  and  possibly  an  anti-social  personality  disorder.  For  the  reasons  discussed 
immediately below, even though personality disorder was the intended reason for the 
applicant's  discharge,  the  evidence  of  record  is  insufficient  to  support  a  discharge  by 
reason of personality disorder.  
 

a.    Major  depression  is  not  a  personality  disorder  but  a  physical  disability.  
Article 5.B.10.b. of the Medical Manual lists major depression as a mood disorder that 
should  be  processed  under  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluations  System  (PDES),  not 
under Article 12 of the Personnel Manual.2 Accordingly, major depression cannot be the 
basis for the applicant's personality disorder discharge. 

 
 
b.    Anti-social  personality  disorder,  properly  diagnosed,  is  listed  under  Article 
5.B.2 of the Medical Manual as a personality disorder.  However, the medical reports of 
May 7, and May 12, 1997, listed anti-social personality disorder as a possible diagnosis, 
but indicated the need to rule it out.  There is no evidence in the record that the anti-
social personality disorder was ever confirmed as a diagnosis for this applicant.  It was 
not  mentioned  in  the  MB  report.    Even  the  CO  admitted  in  his  letter  requesting  the 
applicant's  discharge  that  the  "Antisocial  Personality  Disorder  [diagnosis]  was  not 
                                                 
2    A medical board diagnosed the applicant as suffering from major depression only on April 8, 1997 and 
placed him on limited duty for six months to receive treatment.  However, on  May 27, 1997, the Coast 
Guard  began  proceedings  to  administratively  discharge  the  applicant  under  Article  12.B.16.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.    The  applicant  was  discharged  on  July  1,  1997,  well  short  of  the  six-month  period 
limited duty period. 

definite."  It was an injustice for the Coast Guard to use an uncertain diagnosis as a basis 
to discharge this applicant.   
 

c.  ADHD can be a basis for an administrative separation under Article 5.B.17. of 
the Medical Manual, but it is not listed as a personality disorder in Article 5.B.2. of the 
Medical  Manual.    According  to  Article  5.B.17.  of  the  Medical  Manual,  ADHD  is  a 
disorder that usually presents itself in infancy, childhood or adolescence. It is described 
as a behavioral disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual  of Mental Disorders 
(DSM IV), 4th edition, p. 85.  It would be error for the Board to rely on ADHD as the 
basis for a personality disorder discharge in this case. 
 

5.  The Board finds, however, that the applicant's diagnosed ADHD will support 
a discharge by reason of condition not a disability that interferes with the performance 
of duty.  According to the Medical Manual, ADHD is a ground for an administrative 
discharge.    A  psychologist  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  ADHD,  which  the 
applicant did not object to in 1997.   The applicant in BCMR 2003-079 was discharged 
for a personality disorder based on his diagnosis of ADHD and his DD Form 214 listed 
personality  disorder  as  the  reason  for  discharge.    In  that  case,  the  BCMR  found  that 
ADHD was not a personality disorder and directed the applicant's DD Form 214 to be 
corrected  to  show  that  he  was  discharged  for  the  convenience  of  the  government  by 
reason of condition not a physical disability that interferes with the performance of duty 
under Article 12.B.12. of the Personal Manual.  An applicant received similar relief in 
BCMR No. 1998-022.   The Board will direct the reason for the applicant's discharge be 
changed from "involuntary discharge directed by established directive" to condition not 
a  disability  that  interferes  with  the  performance  of  duty.    In  doing  so,  the  Board  not 
only  finds  support  in  the  record  for  this  change,  but  further  finds  it  to  be  a  more 
positive  reason  than  "involuntary  discharge  directed  by  established  directive"  or 
personality disorder.   

 
6.    The  SPD  Handbook  authorizes  an  involuntary  discharge  or  voluntary 
separation  code  for  a  discharge  based  on  condition  not  a  physical  disability.    The 
applicant's separation code should be changed to KFV (voluntary discharged allowed 
by established directive when a condition not a physical disability interferes with the 
performance of duty).  Since the KFV separation code indicates a voluntary rather than 
an  involuntary  separation,  the  applicant's  chances  for  obtaining  a  full-time  Active 
Reserve Guard position should improve.  Although the applicant did not object to his 
discharge at the time, the Board finds that in light of the errors committed by the Coast 
Guard  in  the  reason  for  discharging  the  applicant  and  taking  into  consideration  the 
applicant's post Coast Guard achievements, a KFV separation code is just. In addition, 
the Board notes the extraordinary manner in which the applicant has rebuilt his military 
and  civilian  careers.    He  is  currently  a  Michigan  State  employee,  a  member  of  the 
Michigan National Guard, a community activist, holds an AA degree, and deployed for 
a nine-month period with his unit to Egypt. The applicant has also shown that he has 

overcome  whatever  problems  he  had  while  in  the  Coast  Guard,  as  evidenced  by  his 
ability to join the Michigan National Guard. 
 

7.  With  respect  to  the  reenlistment  code,  the  Separation  Program  Designator 
Handbook  authorizes  an  RE-3G  reenlistment  code  for  a  discharge  by  reason  of 
condition not a physical disability that interferes with the performance of duty.   Since 
the applicant already has an RE-3G reenlistment code, no change will be directed in the 
reenlistment code. With this code, however, the applicant is required to submit proof 
that  he  is  no  longer  suffering  from  this  condition  before  he  is  allowed  to  enlist  in 
another branch of the Service, as he has done with the Michigan National Guard.   No 
basis exists on which to grant the applicant an RE-1 reenlistment code from the Coast 
Guard  based  on  a  discharge  by  reason  of  condition  not  a  physical  disability  that 
interferes with the performance of duty.   
 

8.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the relief discussed above.  
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

      [ORDER AND SIGNATURE APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

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

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

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

 
Block 28 shall be corrected to show "condition not a physical disability" as 

Government) of the Personnel Manual as separation authority. 
 
 
the separation code. 
 
 
the reason for separation. 
 
The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD Form 214. 
 
All other requests for relief are denied.   
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan