DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-167 
 
  
   

 

 
 

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 August 11, 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  May  5,  2005,  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 personality disorder to miscellaneous/general 
reasons,  his  JFX  separation  code  to  one  denoting    miscellaneous/general  reasons  for 
discharge, and his RE-4 (ineligible) reenlistment code to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).  
 
 
discharged on April 4, 2003.  
 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on May 16, 2000 and was honorably 

EARLIER PROCEEDING 

 

Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant submitted a request to 
 
the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for the same relief requested from the BCMR.  On 
November 13, 2003, the DRB denied the applicant's request, stating the following: 
 

It was the [DRB's] view that the circumstances surrounding the applicant's 
discharge were enough to demonstrate to the Command some degree of 
mental instability, certainly enough to question his ability to perform his 
duties in a safe manner.  The psychological evaluations provided by both 
the  military  and  civilian  clinics  supported  a  finding  that  the  applicant's 
mental state was at least questionable.  The testimony and documentation 
showed  a  persistent  pattern  of  behavioral  issues  throughout  the  entire 
period  he  was  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  [DRB]  felt  the  discharge  was 
carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy.   

  

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that he obtained an independent psychiatric opinion that 
proved  that  the  military  physician's  diagnosis  (personality  disorder)  was  wrong.    He 
further  alleged  that  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  his  case  prove  that  his 
referral for a command-directed mental evaluation was inconsistent with Coast Guard 
policy and procedure and was unfair. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  May  16,  2000.    On  September  5, 
2000, he was diagnosed by a staff member of a local hospital as having an adjustment 
disorder with depressed mood and alcohol abuse.  The applicant's military supervisor 
brought him to the hospital based on a referral from a men's health clinic because the 
applicant had allegedly expressed suicidal ideation.  The hospital report noted that two 
of the applicant's friends had contemplated or attempted suicide and that the applicant 
may have witnessed one of them. It also stated that the applicant's spouse suffered from 
a bi-polar disorder, was violent, and might have attempted suicide.  The reported noted 
that the applicant had job adjustment issues.  The applicant  was  discharged from the 
hospital the same day and directed to follow-up with the Coast Guard medical services.   
 
 
On  September  6,  2000,  the  applicant  was  seen  at  a  military  health  clinic.    In 
addition  to  noting  that  the  applicant  may  have  witnessed  a  friend's  suicide  in 
September  1999,  it  also  noted  that  the  applicant's  spouse  suffered  from  a  bi-polar 
disorder  and  was  at  times  violent  against  the  applicant.    The  military  physician 
diagnosed the applicant as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and 
alcohol abuse and referred the applicant to counseling for alcohol abuse and PTSD.  The 
physician placed the applicant on light duty for one month with no sea or small boat 
duty.   
 
On  September  7,  2000,  an  administrative  remarks  (page  7)  entry was  placed  in 
 
the applicant's record, documenting the fact that he had been diagnosed with alcohol 
abuse and was recommended for a level II outpatient treatment program.  The page 7 

informed  the  applicant  that  he  was  to  abstain  from  all  alcohol  for  90  days  post-
treatment and that he had agreed to attend outpatient treatment. 
 
On  September  19,  2000,  a  licensed  professional  counselor  reported  that  he  had 
 
seen  the  applicant  as  a  result  of  a  referral  from  a  military  physician.  The  counselor 
noted that the applicant was struggling to adapt to his initial Coast Guard assignment 
but  was  feeling  much  better  after  he  was  transferred  to  a  new  assignment.    The 
counselor  wrote  that  he  did  not  feel  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  PTSD  and 
diagnosed  him  as  suffering  from  an  adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  emotional 
features.  The counselor stated that the applicant did not need further counseling. 
 
 
On October 29, 2000, a page 7 was entered into the applicant's record showing 
that he had been released from the alcohol treatment program and that no aftercare was 
required.   
 
 
On  March  8,  2001,  the  applicant  was  referred  for  a  psychiatric  examination  to 
determine if he was fit for Airman  "A" school.  The referral noted that he had suffered 
from depression and anxiety.  On April 24, 2001, the psychiatrist wrote that "[t]here is 
no  indication  of  a  psychiatric  problem  at  this  time  and  there  is  nothing  that  would 
prevent him under the present rules to be considered for aircrew training.  He is fit for 
full duty ashore afloat or in the air." 
 
On April 22, 2002, a page 7 was entered into the applicant's record noting that the 
 
in 
Family  Advocacy  Program  found 
"substantiated" emotional abuse against his spouse and that he was directed to attend a 
52-week batterer's treatment program and to be screened by the CDAR (collateral duty 
alcohol  representative).    The  entry  noted  that  the  applicant  was  referred  to  the 
"American Family Alliance" for treatment, but had failed to make any real effort toward 
contacting  and  scheduling  an  initial  meeting  with  the  counselor,  and  that  once  he 
attended a meeting he disowned any responsibility for his actions and requested to be 
rejected as a participant.  According to the page 7, the applicant was removed from the 
program because participation in the  "American Family Alliance" program is based on 
the individual's acknowledgment of personal responsibility and willingness to address 
his or her problems.  The removal of the applicant from the program caused the Coast 
Guard's  Family  Program  Administrator  to  spend  additional  time  identifying  another 
program  for  the  applicant.    The  page  7  stated  that  the  applicant  was  referred  to  the 
"Alternatives to Violence" program, and it advised him of the following: 
 

the  applicant  had  been 

that 

involved 

If  at  any  time  during  the  treatment  period,  the  command  perceives  you 
are  not  making  a reasonable  effort  to overcome  these  deficiencies  or  are 
failing to adhere to the abuse treatment program, you will be placed in a 
probationary  status  for  misconduct,  and  will  be  evaluated  for  continued 

service  in  the  United  States  Coast  Guard.    It's  your  choice;  take  stock  in 
your decision.   

 
On  October  17,  2002,  a  page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant's  record  counseling 
 
him on his duty to provide adequate financial support for his family.  According to the 
page  7,  the  applicant's  wife  had  complained  to  the  applicant's  command  that  he  was 
providing inadequate support for the family. 
 

 
On November 4, 2002, a flight surgeon grounded the applicant from his airman's 
duties  due  to  a  personality  disorder  and  placed  him  on  permanent  limited  duty.    A 
flight surgeon's medical note dated November 18, 2002, indicates that the applicant had 
been  observed  staying  up  all  night,  appearing  anxious,  acting  irritable/aggressive  to 
coworkers, having a labile mood, and not attending marital counseling as directed.  The 
flight surgeon recommended that the applicant be evaluated for a psychiatric disorder 
and/or personality disorder to determine if he was suitable for continued military duty.  

 
On  December  5,  2002,  a  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant's  record 
documenting his placement on mandatory probation due to his lack of participation in 
the  "Alternatives  to  Violence"  program.  The  commanding  officer  (CO)  warned  the 
applicant that if he did not show significant improvement the command would initiate 
action to discharge him from the Coast Guard.   

 
 
On December 13, 2002, a page 7 noted that the applicant had indicated that he 
felt he had been subjected to religious discrimination.  The CO advised the applicant the 
command  would  not  tolerate  discrimination  in  the  workplace.    The  applicant  was 
advised that he could seek guidance from his supervisor, the civil rights officer, or the 
CO on the matter.     
 
 
On December 20, 2002, the applicant's CO advised him that he was referring the 
applicant for a command directed mental health evaluation.   In light of the following, 
the CO stated that he was extremely concerned with the applicant's ability to effectively 
function in a military environment: 
 

You have been evaluated twice for the use/abuse of alcohol, one being a 
self-referral.    Through  comments  and  demeanor,  you  have  led  others  to 
believe that you were suicidal on two occasions.  You have been the victim 
of spouse abuse during two documented incidents.  Each time, you were 
provided  with  avenues  to  resolve  these  issues  and  each  time  you  either 
deny that the problem exists, that it was an issue of circumstance, or you 
completely  deny  any  personal  ownership  of  the  situation.    With  this 
pattern of repeated behaviors, and your unwillingness to follow through 
with the counseling provided, I am extremely concerned with your ability 
to effectively function in a military environment, especially aviation.   

 

The CO advised the applicant that he had the right to obtain a second opinion 
from a mental healthcare provider of his own choosing at the applicant's expense.  He 
was told to meet with a Naval psychiatrist on December 27, 2002.   
 
 
On December 27, 2002, the psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from 
a  personality  disorder  not  otherwise  specified  (NOS)  with  narcissistic  traits.    The 
psychiatrist provided the following plan and recommendation for the applicant: 
 

The  service  member  is  not  considered  mentally  ill  but  does  manifest  a 
longstanding  disorder  of  character  and  behavior  consistent  with 
personality  disorder  [NOS]  with  narcissistic  traits  that  may  inhibit  the 
performance of his task.  If the member's performance does not improve 
or there are more behavioral issues in the future related to this, then the 
patient  could  be  considered  for  an  administrative  separation    .  .  . 
However,  at  this  time,  the  patient  may  be  considered  for  a  trial  of 
continued  duty.    It  is recommended  that  he  follow  up  for  some  therapy 
with the Air Force psychologist.  He agrees to that at this time.   

 

On January 21, 2003, the applicant's CO informed the applicant that the CO had 
initiated  action  to  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard  due  to  a  personality 
disorder  based  on  the  December  27,  2002,  diagnosis.    The  applicant  acknowledged 
notification  of  the  proposed  discharge,  objected  to  it,  and  attached  a  statement  in  his 
behalf. 
 

On  January  23,  2003,  the  applicant  obtained  a  second  opinion  from  an 
independent civilian psychiatrist.  The independent psychiatrist stated that he reviewed 
the  correspondence  between  the  applicant  and  the  military,  as  well  as  the  applicant's 
previous  military  psychiatric  evaluations,  and  that  he  interviewed  the  applicant  for 
approximately  90  minutes  on  January  9,  2003.    According  to  this  psychiatrist,  the 
applicant reported feeling that his superiors had treated him unfairly.  The psychiatrist 
reported that the applicant was alert and oriented in all spheres, his speech was normal, 
his affect was in full range, and he had good intelligence. The psychiatrist noted that the 
applicant denied suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, and paranoid ideation and that 
he appeared anxious with feelings of being treated unfairly.  The applicant's judgment 
was reported to be fair.  The independent psychiatrist's assessment was as follows: 
 

[The applicant] appears to have had problems relating to the breakup of 
his  marriage  (wife  diagnosed  Bipolar),  and dealing  with  the  culture  and 
stressors  of  being  in  the  Service  (reporting  it  to  be  unfair).    In  my 
Professional  opinion,  [the  applicant]  does  not  appear  to  have  any  long 
standing character or logic problems or enduring patterns of behavior that 
deviated  markedly  from  the  expectations  of  this  culture,  or  that  are 

pervasive, inflexible, and had an onset in adolescence or early adulthood.  
No  cluster  of  symptoms  that  would  support  the  diagnosis  of  histrionic, 
narcissistic or another personality disorder is noted.  He may have had a 
history  of  depression  or  alcohol  abuse  in  the  past  (not  currently)  when 
dealing with stressors. 

 
 
The  applicant  wrote  a  17-page  statement  objecting  to  his  discharge.    In  his 
conclusion, he stated that he came into the Coast Guard with a lot of "issues," but since 
his wife left him on January 4, 2002, the only problems he had were not being able to 
contact  a  social  worker,  not  being  able  to  attend  abuse  classes,  and  getting  into  an 
argument with a petty officer.  He stated that he had not had any more of a problem 
awaking or falling asleep than anyone else.  He alleged that he worked in a hostile work 
environment, which was much improved due to a certain lieutenant's leadership.  He 
reported low morale at his unit due to the manner in which people are spoken to.   
 
 
the CO's request to discharge the applicant effective April 4, 2003.   
 
 
On March 12, 2003, the applicant underwent a discharge physical and was found 
fit for separation.  On March 27, 2003, the applicant signed a statement agreeing with 
the findings of the discharge physical, and he indicated that he did not desire to submit 
a statement.   
 

On March 7, 2003, the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command, approved 

On April 4, 2003, the applicant was discharged, after serving 2 years, 10 months, 

and 19 days on active duty.   

 
 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On  January  5,  2003,  the  Board  received  the  advisory  opinion  from  the  Judge 
Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard,  recommending  partial  relief.    He 
recommended that the applicant's reenlistment code be upgraded from RE-4 to RE-3G 
(eligible to reenlist, except for disqualifying factor, personality disorder).    
 

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 the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice 
by discharging him.  He argued that to the contrary, the record shows that the applicant 

was  properly  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard  and  assigned  a  reenlistment  code  that 
precludes his entering the armed services based on his medical record.   

 
The JAG stated that although the applicant alleges that his personality disorder 
diagnosis is erroneous, the evidence offered by the applicant from the civilian provider, 
who was selected and paid for by the applicant, merely shows that the civilian provider 
had a different opinion than the military doctor who made the diagnosis for which the 
applicant was separated.  In addition, the JAG argued that there is a lack of evidence 
regarding what materials the civilian health care provider considered.  He argued that 
the  applicant  has  not  produced  evidence  sufficient  to  overcome  the  presumption  of 
regularity in this case.  
 
 
The JAG attached a memorandum from CGPC as Enclosure (1) to the advisory 
opinion and asked the Board to accept it as a part of the advisory opinion.  CGPC stated 
that the applicant's discharge under Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual was correct 
and that he had been afforded his full due process rights.  CGPC further stated that the 
RE-4  reenlistment  code  was  appropriate,  but  there  were  some  inconsistencies  in  the 
record  that  create  doubt  as  to  whether  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  "was  a  just 
application of Coast Guard policy." In this regard, CGPC noted that the applicant was 
placed  on  permanent  limited  duty  on  November  2,  2002,  without  any  previous 
observations as required by Coast Guard policy; that there was very little information to 
document alleged observations that the applicant was staying up  all night, appearing 
anxious, etc.; and that even with the diagnosis of personality disorder on December 27, 
2002, there was only a recommendation that the applicant be considered for discharge if 
his behavior did not improve.  CGPC also noted that a civilian psychiatrist did not find 
that the applicant had a personality disorder. He further noted that there was no record 
that the civilian psychiatric report was taken into consideration during the applicant's 
separation physical evaluation.  CGPC concluded with the following: 
 

It  appears  that  over  the  years  the  applicant  exhibited  some  behavioral 
traits  that  may  have  led  to  his  separation.    A  diagnosis  of  personality 
disorder  is  a  justifiable  cause  for  separation.    However,  the  reenlistment 
code  assigned  to  the  applicant,  considering  [the  inconsistencies  noted] 
unjustly  denies  him  a  fair  opportunity  to  be  considered  for  future 
accession  in  any  branch  of  the  United  States  Armed  Services.    I  do  not 
recommend  relief  that  would  fully  excuse  the  applicant's  behavior  or 
previous diagnosis or allow him unquestioned eligibility to enter a service 
by the assignment of RE Code RE-1.  I believe assignment of reenlistment 
code  RE-3G  (condition,  not  a  disability,  that 
interferes  with  the 
performance of duty) would be appropriate in this case.    Assigning Code 
RE-3G does not automatically bar or allow his accession, but will require 
him  to  fully  document  and  demonstrate  to  service  recruiting  authorities 

that  he  has  overcome  and  resolved  the  behaviors  that  led  to  his 
separation.     

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 12, 2005, the BCMR received the applicant's reply to the views of the 
Coast Guard.  He stated that while he was pleased that the Coast Guard recommended 
upgrading his reenlistment code to RE-3G, he still believes that he should receive  an 
RE-1 reenlistment code and that the JFX personality disorder separation code should be 
removed.   
 
 
The applicant took exception to the JAG's comment that "I merely hired a civilian 
doctor who had a different opinion [than the military doctor]."  The applicant argued 
that the statement implies that he paid the civilian for a favorable opinion.  He stated 
that there was not a lack of information provided to the civilian doctor as suggested by 
the  JAG.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  provided  the  civilian  with  all  the  same 
documentation given to the military doctor, which was verified by the civilian doctor's 
report.   
 
 
With  respect  to  having  to  obtain  a  waiver  for  the  recommended  RE-3G 
reenlistment code, the applicant stated that he did not feel there were any just reasons 
for  refusing  to  change  his  code.    He  further  stated  that  he  would  not  know  how  to 
document and demonstrate to service recruiting authorities that he had overcome and 
resolved  his  behavioral  problems  that  led  to  his  separation  any  more  than  he  has 
already.   
 

 
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).  
 

 
 
 
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.   
 
The  SPD  Handbook  authorizes  either  an  RE-1  or  RE-4  reenlistment  code  for  a 
 
discharge due to miscellaneous/general reasons.  It defines such a discharge as either 
the voluntary or involuntary "discharge directed by established directive when a service 
component  does  not  have  a  service  reporting  requirement  for  specific  reason  and 
desires  to  identify  reasons  collectively  'all  other  reasons'  which  qualify  a  member  for 
separation." 
 

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 Coast Guard  did not commit an error by discharging the applicant by 
reason of personality disorder based on the psychiatric report dated December 27, 2002, 
in  which  the  military  psychiatrist  determined  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  a 
personality disorder NOS with narcissistic traits and that he could be discharged if his 
performance and behavior did not improve.  Under Article 12.B.16.b.2. of the Personnel 
Manual, the only requirement for a discharge by reason of personality disorder appears 
to  be  that  a  psychiatrist,  if  available,  diagnose  a  member  with  one  of  the  personality 
disorders listed in Article 5 of the Medical Manual.   

 
3.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Coast Guard may not have committed an 
error, the Board finds that it committed an injustice that shocks its sense of justice by 
discharging the applicant by reason of personality disorder at that time. In this regard, 
the Coast Guard discharged the applicant without resolving the two conflicting medical 
opinions  of  whether  the  applicant  suffered  from  a  personality  disorder.    The  Coast 

Guard provided him with the opportunity to obtain a second opinion when it directed 
that  he  undergo  a  mental  evaluation.    On  January  23,  2003,  an  independent  civilian 
psychiatrist evaluated the applicant.  Contrary to the military psychiatrist's findings, the 
civilian psychiatrist found that the applicant did not have a personality disorder.  There 
is  no  indication  in  the  record  that  the  Coast  Guard  ever  attempted  to  reconcile  the 
differences between these two conflicting diagnoses, but appeared to simply accept the 
military psychiatrist's evaluation.  In the Board's view, since Article 5.C. of the Medical 
Manual  provided  the  applicant  with  the  opportunity  to  obtain  a  second  psychiatric 
opinion  that  differed  significantly  from  that  of  the  military  psychiatrist,  it  was 
incumbent  upon  the  Coast  Guard  to  resolve  the  inconsistent  diagnoses,  or  at  least  to 
explain  why  one  diagnosis  was  acceptable  over  the  other  before  discharging  the 
applicant.  The  Coast  Guard's  failure  to  do  so  was  unfair  and  an  injustice  under  the 
circumstances  of  this  case.    CGPC  pointed  out  that  it  did  not  appear  that  the 
independent  civilian  mental  examination  was  reviewed  during  the  applicant's 
separation physical of March 12, 2003.   

 
4.    The  JAG  indicated  that  the  Board  should  ignore  the  results  from  the 
independent  mental  examination  because  of  a  lack  of  evidence  establishing  what 
materials  the  independent  civilian  psychiatrist  used  in  his  evaluation.    However,  the 
civilian psychiatrist wrote in his report that he reviewed the correspondence between 
the  applicant  and  the  military  and  the  applicant's  previous  military  psychiatric 
evaluations,  and  that  he  interviewed  the  applicant  for  approximately  90  minutes  on 
January  9,  2003.    Apparently,  this  is  the  same  information  reviewed  and  used  by  the 
military psychiatrist.   

 
5.  The Board is further persuaded that an injustice occurred because the military 
psychiatrist did not recommend the applicant's immediate discharge.  In the December 
27, 2002 report, she stated that if the applicant's performance did not improve or if there 
were  future  behavioral  problems  that  the  applicant  should  be  considered  for  an 
administrative discharge.  However, approximately three weeks later, the CO advised 
the  applicant  that  he  was  recommending  his  discharge  due  to  personality  disorder 
based on the December 27, 2002, psychiatric evaluation.  The CO's notification letter did 
not cite any additional problems with the applicant's performance or behavior.   

 
6.  In light of the above findings, the Board finds that the Coast Guard's discharge 
of the applicant due to a personality disorder constituted an injustice that shocks our 
sense of justice.  In reaching this conclusion, the Board does not find that the applicant 
did  not  have  a  personality  disorder  but  only  that  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  resolve 
inconsistencies  in  the  medical  opinions  or  explain  why  the  military  psychiatrist's 
diagnosis was more acceptable.  Nor does the Board dismiss or take lightly the fact that 
the  applicant  was  an  administrative  burden  on  his  command,  as  evidenced  by  the 
numerous page 7s in  his record.  However, a personality disorder discharge carries a 

stigma  and  should  be  awarded  only 
circumstances.   

if 

it  accurately  depicts  the  applicant's 

 
7.  Having found that the discharge by reason of personality disorder constituted 
an injustice, the Board must fashion relief that is appropriate under the circumstances of 
this  case.    Since  the  Coast  Guard  has  recommended  changing  the  applicant's 
reenlistment code to RE-3G (condition not a physical disability that interferes with the 
performance of duty) the Board finds that changing the reason for his discharge from 
personality disorder to condition not a physical disability would be a fair and equitable 
solution  under  the  circumstances.  While  the  Board  finds  the  discharge  by  reason  of 
personality disorder constituted an injustice, the evidence shows that the applicant had 
several diagnoses of adjustment and personality disorders at various times while in the 
Coast Guard.  Although there is disagreement between the last military psychiatrist to 
see the applicant and the independent civilian psychiatrist about whether the applicant 
had  a  personality  disorder,  the  Board  is  satisfied  that  he  at  least  suffered  from  some 
condition that  led to his inability to adjust  to military life, as evidenced by reports of 
suicidal ideation, alcohol abuse, spousal abuse and marital difficulties, failure to attend 
marital  counseling  as  directed,  flight  grounding,  inability  to  sleep,  and  an  altercation 
with a fellow crewmember. Therefore, a discharge by reason of condition not a physical 
disability interfering with the performance of duty is an appropriate basis for discharge 
in this case, and it is certainly more favorable than a discharge by reason of personality 
disorder.   
 

8.  The  Board  notes  that  a  discharge  for  miscellaneous/general  reasons,  as 
requested by the applicant, could be a suitable basis for discharge.  However, the only 
options for reenlistment codes available under the SPD Handbook for such a discharge 
are RE-1 and RE-4.  The applicant's military behavior does not support an RE-1.  While 
the applicant may not have had any non-judicial punishments, as stated above, he was 
an administrative burden on the command.  Therefore, the Board finds that a discharge 
by reason of condition, not a disability ,that interferes with the performance of duty and 
the RE-3G reenlistment code, as recommended by the Coast Guard, are an appropriate 
remedy under the circumstances presented  here.  The RE-3G  will allow the applicant 
the chance of reenlisting in another branch of the service with a waiver. 

 
9.    The  applicant's  argument  that  his  command  directed  referral  for  a  mental 
evaluation was in violation of the regulation is without merit.  The command complied 
with  the  regulation,  and  the  applicant  was  given  the  opportunity  to  obtain  a  second 
opinion. 
 

10.  Accordingly, relief should be granted as discussed above.  

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  ____________________  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is granted.  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 JFV (condition not a physical disability) as 

Block 27 shall be corrected to RE-3G as the reenlistment code. 
 
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.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

 
 
 Eric J. Young 

        

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer