DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-035 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxxxx, AM3 (former) 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR: Hale, 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  December  7,  2004,  upon  receipt  of the  applicant’s 
completed application and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  31,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former aviation mechanic (AM) in the Coast Guard, asked 
the Board to correct his military record by upgrading his reenlistment code and 
his separation code so he can enlist in the Air Force Reserve.  
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  enlisted  in  the  Army  National  Guard  in 
September 2003 but would like to enlist in the Air Force Reserve and complete 
his military career.1  However, he alleged that the Air Force would not allow him 
to  enlist  because  he  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  an  RE-3P2 
reentry code.  
 

                                                 
1 The applicant alleged that the Army  National Guard enlisted  him notwithstanding the RE-3P 
reenlistment code. 
2  A  reenlistment  code  of  RE-3P  means  the  member  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  a 
disqualifying factor (physical disability), and must have a waiver to reenlist. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a spirometry3 report 
and a chest x-ray dated April 16, 2002.  The radiologist who performed the test 
and evaluated the x-ray noted that the “testing indicates normal spirometry” and 
that the chest x-ray was “normal.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On  June  1,  1987, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a term  of 

 
four years.  After completing recruit training, he was assigned to a cutter.  

 
During his enlistment, the applicant sought treatment on several occasions 
for complaints consistent with asthma.  His condition apparently worsened and 
his records indicate that he was temporarily retired from the Coast Guard on July 
20, 1995, due to physical disability.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 dated June 20, 
1995,  indicates  that  he  was  temporarily  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard  effective 
June 21, 1995, placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL), and given a 
separation code of SFK4 and a reenlistment code of RE-2.5   

 
On August 9, 1999, the Coast Guard’s Central Physical Evaluation Board6 
determined that the applicant was not fit for continued duty in the Coast Guard. 
The applicant was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) indicating 
that  he  was  being  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  and  was  being  removed 
from the TDRL.  His DD Form 215 indicates that he was given a separation code 
of JFL7 and a reenlistment code of RE-3P.   He received $23,764.80 in severance 
pay. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On April 19, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that the  Board  deny  relief.    The 

                                                 
3 A spirometry is the measurement of the breathing capacity of the lungs, such as in pulmonary 
function tests.  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 29TH ED. (2000), p. 1680. 
 
4 SFK:  Temporary physical disability, retirement required by law.  SPD Code Handbook, page 1-
6 and 3-2. 
5 RE-2:  Ineligible for reenlistment because of placement on TDRL.  SPD Code Handbook, page 3-
1. 
6  The  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  is  a  permanently  established  administrative  body 
convened to evaluate, on a records basis, the fitness for duty of active and reserve members and 
the  fitness  for  duty  of  members  on  TDRL.    See  Chapter  4.A.1.  of  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation System Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C). 
7  JFL  is  used  to  denote  an  involuntary  discharge  for  members  discharged  for  a  disability,  with 
severance pay.  SPD Code Handbook, page 2-5 

JAG  relied  on  a  memorandum  from  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) concerning the applicant’s request.   
 
The JAG argued that the applicant’s request should be denied because the 
 
Applicant did not “offer any evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error 
or injustice.”  In addition, the JAG argued that the applicant is not entitled to an 
upgrade of his reenlistment code because he was administratively separated after 
a  lengthy  period  of  evaluation  in  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System 
(PDES) and received separation pay and the accordant RE-3P reenlistment code 
pursuant  to  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook.    The  JAG 
argued that the RE-3P code is appropriate because it places military recruiters on 
notice that the applicant has a medical problem that may affect his performance.  
The JAG further argued that “To remove [the] flag would not only be contrary to 
the  effective  Coast  Guard  regulation,  but  would  allow  [the]  applicant  to  enlist 
without  having  his  medical  condition  appropriately  evaluated.    This  could 
potentially be dangerous, or even fatal, to applicant and others.” 
 

CGPC  recommended  that  relief  be  denied  and  stated  that  because  the 
applicant was separated due to a physical disability, the only reenlistment code 
authorized  with  a  separation  code  of  JFL  is  RE-3P  or  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment).  The CGPC also pointed out that the RE-3P code does not preclude 
the  applicant  from  ever  being  considered  for  reenlistment.    On  the  contrary, 
CGPC noted that the applicant merely needs to demonstrate to a recruiter that he 
is otherwise fully qualified for enlistment and has overcome the problem that led 
to his original separation from the Coast Guard. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 3, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    A  response  was  not 
received.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Article 12.B.15.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that the Commander, 
(CGPC-epm-1) may direct or authorize a discharge for physical disability when a 
medical  board  has  determined  that  the  member  does  not  meet  the  minimum 
standards for retention on active duty.   
 
 
Article 1.E. of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms 
states  that  a  member’s  DD  Form  214  should  show  a  separation  code  and 
reenlistment code “as shown in the SPD Handbook or as stated by [CGPC] in the 

message granting discharge authority.”  The narrative reason for separation on 
the DD 214 must be whatever is specified by CGPC. 
 

The  SPD  Handbook  mandates  the  assignment  of  an  RE-3P  reenlistment 
code with the JFL separation code.  It states that the JFL code is to be used when 
there is an involuntary separation as directed by established directive, resulting 
from  physical  disability,  with  entitlement  to  severance  pay.    The  authorized 
narrative reason for separation under this code is ”Physical Disability.”   
 

 

RE Code 
RE-3P 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.15 

SPD 
Code 
JFL 

Narrative Reason 
for Separation 
Disability, 
severance pay 

 
Explanation 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] resulting 
from physical disability with entitlement to 
severance pay.  Retirement not authorized 

 

Article 2.E.1.b.5. of the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual states that an RE-3 
(alpha character) reenlistment code is not a bar to enlistment or reenlistment and 
shall not be, by itself, the reason to reject a prospect or applicant. 

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 in this case pursuant to section 1552 of 

title 10 of the United States Code. 

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the 
day the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  
The  applicant  was  issued  a  DD  Form  215  on  June  2,  2000,  with  an  RE-3P 
reenlistment code, and he knew or should have known that he had received an 
RE-3P  reenlistment  code.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  application  was 
filed more than 2 years after the statute of limitations expired and is untimely. 

 
3. 

Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  waive  the  three-year 
statute of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 
F.  Supp.  158,  164  (D.D.C.  1992),  the  court  stated  that  in  assessing  whether  the 
interest  of  justice  supports  a  waiver  of  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  Board 
“should  analyze  both  the  reasons  for  the  delay  and  the  potential  merits  of  the 
claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the longer 
the  delay  has  been  and  the  weaker  the  reasons  are  for  the  delay,  the  more 
compelling the merits would need to be to justify a full review.”  Id. at 164, 165.   
See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).  
 

4. 

 The applicant provided no explanation for his failure to request an 
upgrade of his reenlistment code at an earlier date.  Moreover, a cursory review 
of  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed  an  error  or  injustice  when  it  gave  him  an  RE-3P  reenlistment  code.  
Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the 
three-year statute of limitations. 

 
5. 

The Board notes that  the applicant is not contesting his discharge 
from the Coast Guard; he is only seeking a change in his reenlistment code so he 
may  enlist  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  which  apparently  refused  to  grant  him  a 
waiver.  Notably, the applicant did not allege that the Coast Guard committed 
any  error  or  injustice  when  it  discharged  him  for  having  a  physical  disability.  
The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that he was temporarily retired from the 
Coast Guard due to a physical disability (asthma).  After more than four years on 
TDRL, the Central Physical Evaluation Board determined that the applicant was 
still  not  fit  for  duty,  and  he  was  subsequently  discharged  with  a  reenlistment 
code of RE-3P, in accordance with Article 12.B.15.b. of the Personnel Manual.  

 
6. 

The  SPD  handbook  clearly  states  that  members  discharged  for  a 
physical disability shall receive an RE-3P reenlistment code.  The RE-3P code is 
not  a  permanent  bar  to  enlistment  but  requires  the  applicant  to  satisfy  a 
recruiting command that he no longer suffers from the disability that led to his 
discharge before he is allowed to enlist.  See Article 2.E.1.b.5. of the Coast Guard 
Recruiting Manual.  The applicant submitted medical records indicating that at 
least  some  doctors  might  find  him  fit  for  military  service.    It  is  within  the 
discretion of each service  whether to grant him a  waiver based on the medical 
evidence, and the Board sees no reason to circumvent their discretion by raising 
the applicant’s reenlistment code to RE-1. 
 

7. 

 Accordingly, due to the probable lack of success on the merits of 
his  claim,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the 
statute of limitations in this case and it should be denied because it is untimely.  

 
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  AM3  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is denied. 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Nancy L. Friedman