DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-082 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed 
the application for correction on March 25, 2005, 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  January  5,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  seaman  apprentice  (SA;  pay  grade  E-2)  in  the 
Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  upgrading  the 
reenlistment code on his discharge form (DD 214) from RE-4 so that he would be 
eligible to reenlist.  He was discharged on January 26, 2000, with an RE-4 reen-
listment code (ineligible for reenlistment), a JFX separation code (unsuitable for 
service due to a personality disorder), and “Personality Disorder” as the narra-
tive  reason  for  separation  shown  on  his  DD  214.    The  applicant  asked  that  his 
narrative  reason  for  separation  and  separation  and  reenlistment  codes  be 
upgraded to “Miscellaneous/General,” JND, and RE-1 (eligible to reenlist) or, if 
not, to “Condition, Not A Disability,” JFV,  and RE-3G (eligible to reenlist with 
waiver). 
 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  diagnosis  of  “personality  disorder”1  was 
based on two short consultations with a psychologist, Dr. G, after his command 
gave her biased information.  He stated that “she was very un-professional and 
curt in her questioning, which led me to become very frustrated.”  The applicant 
alleged that at the time, he was under a lot of stress because his grandfather had 
died of cancer and he had been in a boating accident and incurred “a life chang-
ing  knee  injury  that  the  USCG  doctor  did  not  take  seriously.”    The  applicant 
stated that he was actually suffering from a temporary “adjustment disorder,”2 
rather than a permanent “personality disorder,” and that the stresses that caused 
the adjustment disorder are no longer present in his life.  He argued that upgrad-
ing his DD 214 as requested would be consistent with several of this Board’s past 
decisions. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  while  in  the  Coast  Guard,  he  never  received 
 
non-judicial  punishment  (NJP)  and  “carried  out  my  duties  to  the  best  of  my 
abilities  even  when  my  command  made  me  feel  isolated  and  moved  the  only 
person  who  tried  to  help  me  with  my  career  to  another  duty  rotation.”    The 
applicant alleged that since his discharge, he has “had stable employment, never 
been in trouble with the law, … [and earned an] AA degree in Paralegal Studies” 
in a program approved by the American Bar Association.  The applicant submit-
ted  many  medical  records  and  other  documents  in  support  of  his  allegations, 
including  
 

• 
two  letters  of  recommendation  from  the  Office  of  the  Commonwealth’s 
Attorney  in  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  which  indicate  that  the  applicant  is  a  very 
personable  and  hard  worker,  who  has  shown  himself  to  be  willing  to  learn 

                                                 
1 A “personality disorder” is “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates 
markedly  from  the  expectations  of  the  individual’s  culture,  is  pervasive  and  inflexible,  has  an 
onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.”  
American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 
FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT  REVISION  (2000)  (DSM-IV-TR),  p.  685.    Types  of  personality  disorders 
include  paranoid,  schizoid,  schizotypal,  antisocial,  borderline,  histrionic,  narcissistic,  avoidant, 
dependent, and obsessive-compulsive.  Id.  “The diagnosis of Personality Disorders requires an 
evaluation of the individual’s long-term patterns of functioning … .  The personality traits that 
define these disorders must also be distinguished from characteristics that emerge in response to 
specific situational stressors or more transient mental states … .  The clinician should assess the 
stability  of  personality  traits  over  time  and  across  different  situations.”    Id.  at  686.  The  Coast 
Guard  relies  on  the  DSM  when  diagnosing  members  with  psychological  conditions.    See Coast 
Guard Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B), Chap. 5.B.1. 
2 Adjustment disorders are defined as psychological responses to identifiable stressors that result 
in  the  development  of  clinically  significant  emotional  or  behavioral  symptoms.    Adjustment 
disorders  are  not  personality  disorders  and  normally  disappear  when  the  stressors  disappear.  
American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 
FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 679.   

and follow directions, is very committed to self improvement, has “excellent 
people skills”; 

•  a letter of recommendation from the head of the Legal Assisting Program 
at the applicant’s college, stating that the applicant has a “strong work ethic” 
and  is  “extremely  good  natured,”  never  disruptive,  and  “always  courteous 
and polite”; 

•  a letter of recommendation from a veterans’ employment representative at 
the  xxxxxxxxxx  Employment  Commission,  stating  that  the  applicant  is  a 
“quick  learner,  a  team  player,”  who  works  quite  competently  with  little 
supervision; and 

•  a  letter  of  recommendation  from  the  Director  of  Human  Resources  at  a 
security company, stating that the applicant was a responsible, efficient, and 
trustworthy security guard. 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S MILITARY AND MEDICAL RECORDS 

 

The applicant first enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 29, 1997, at the age 
of  18.    On  his  Report  of  Medical  History  prior  to  his  enlistment,  the  applicant 
denied ever having suffered from depression or having been treated for a mental 
condition.  Following boot camp, he was assigned to a cutter on the xxxx Coast. 

 
On January 8, 1998, the applicant’s command referred him for a psychiat-
ric  evaluation.    Several  “page  7”  record  entries  indicate  that  the  applicant  was 
disruptive,  argumentative,  and  threatening  to  crewmates  and  superiors  at  his 
command.  The applicant told the doctor that no one on his boat understood him 
and that “they need to adjust their attitudes.”  He admitted that his mother had 
taken him to a psychiatrist while in high school.  Dr. N found him to be angry 
and volatile and diagnosed him with an “Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Dis-
turbance of Emotion and Conduct.”  The applicant was sent to anger and stress 
management classes.   

 
On February 13, 1998, Dr. N noted that the applicant had been referred for 
evaluation  due  to  continuing  disruptive,  disrespectful  behavior  and  to  making 
threatening  remarks  to  crewmates  and  superiors.    Dr.  N  noted  that  it  was 
unlikely that the applicant would ever adapt to military life and recommended 
that he be administratively discharged. 

 
On May 15, 1998, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast 
Guard with “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation on his 

DD 214, a JFX separation code (denoting an involuntary discharge due to a per-
sonality disorder), and an RE-3G reenlistment code. 

 
In September 1998, the applicant consulted Dr. S pursuant to an attempt to 
receive a waiver and enlist in the Navy.  Dr. S wrote that the applicant said he 
had  been  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  in  May  1998  due  to  a  diagnosed 
adjustment disorder after having two confrontations—one with a crewmate and 
one with a lieutenant.  The applicant reported that he had been under stress due 
to a serious accident and injury and his father’s illness.  Dr. S wrote that there is 
“[n]o  current  evidence  for  major  psych.  illness—[patient]  states  he  feels  more 
mature to handle conflict/stress—father is in good health—Obviously, I cannot 
predict precisely how [he] may handle conflict in future, but I see no current evi-
dence for psychiatric illness.” 

 
On October 3, 1998, Dr. R of a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hos-
pital  wrote  that  “[n]either  the  applicant’s  background  not  his  current  mental 
status are consistent with any thought disorder or mood disorder” and that test-
ing would be necessary to determine whether there was a personality disorder, 
which was not detectable during their interview. 
 

On  December  1,  1998,  a  clinical  psychologist’s  report  reported  that  he 
agreed  with  Dr.  R  that  the  applicant  had  “no  psychiatric  disorder.”  The  psy-
chologist noted that mental disorders testing by the DVA on November 12, 1998, 
had revealed “no  clinical disorder” and that “[t]he only disorder that he could 
possibly  qualify  for  is  number  309.9,  adjustment  disorder  not  otherwise 
specified.  This primarily is a stress-related disorder, associated with the current 
distress that [he] is experiencing with regard to the problems that he is having 
with his job and the diagnosis. … It is unfortunate that [the applicant] has been 
labeled with the diagnosis of personality disorder, which carries many negative 
impressions and expectations … .  It is unclear as to whether or not he has ever 
really  met  the  criteria,  which  include  the  requirement  that  such  a  disorder  be 
ongoing for a number of years.” 
 
Subsequently, the applicant asked his congressman to help him reenlist in 
 
the Coast Guard.  He wrote that he loved the sea and wanted to complete a 20-
year career in a sea-going service.  Initially, the Coast Guard refused to grant a 
waiver, stating that too little time had passed since his discharge.  However, on 
July  8,  1999,  the  applicant  was  allowed  to  reenlist  in  the  Coast  Guard  after 
receiving a waiver. 
 
On October 22, 1999, the applicant’s command counseled him about “dis-
 
ruptive and non-conforming behavior.”  The record entry notes that he had twice 
asked  to  be  discharged  and  was  slow  to  achieve  qualifications  and  that  the 

“[t]ime that you spend figuring out how you can get discharged from the Coast 
Guard or get out of your responsibilities of Boat Crewman is time that could be 
spent working on your quals.”  The applicant refused to sign the entry. 
 
 
On October 27, 1999, the applicant hurt his right knee playing football.  He 
told a doctor that he had been having anxiety attacks, nightmares, sleeplessness, 
and headaches since a boating incident on October 10, 1999.  The applicant told 
the doctor that he would not go back on the cutter and “wanted out of the Coast 
Guard.”    The  applicant  also  told  the  doctor  that  he  had  “thoughts  of  harming 
fellow co-workers.”  The doctor referred him to a clinical psychologist and noted 
that  the  applicant  should  be  evaluated  to  “rule  out”  post-traumatic  stress 
disorder, specific phobia, and personality disorder. 
 
On November 2, 1999, a clinical psychologist, Dr. G interviewed the appli-
 
cant and noted that he said he was “feeling like he was going to explode.”  Dr. G 
wrote that the applicant reported having “difficulty [with] the lack of freedom in 
the USCG” and a “significant fear of being on a boat.”  She wrote that he wanted 
to be discharged so that he could enlist in the National Guard.   
 

On November 9, 1999, Dr. G again interviewed the applicant.  According 
to  her report,  he  insisted  that  his  only  problem  with  being  in  the  Coast  Guard 
was his fear of boats since his boat “capsized” on October 10, 1999.  Dr. G noted 
that this statement contradicted one he had made to her on November 2, 1999, 
when he told her that the boat had simply tilted and taken on water.  The appli-
cant became “very angry and frustrated when it was suggested that there might 
be additional factors in his difficulty in the USCG.”  The applicant told Dr. G that 
he had difficulty in the Coast Guard because of the “culture shock” and that he 
felt like a “slave.”  He told her that he “is very aware of his surroundings in the 
event someone may attempt to harm him” and had recently thought that some 
workmen  were  installing  a  “listening  device  above  his  room  because  they 
seemed  to  be  taking  a  rather  long  time  to  complete  a  job  on  the  sprinkler  sys-
tem.”  He admitted that he had been previously discharged following “numer-
ous instances of … hostile, aggressive behavior towards other service members.”  
She noted that he had recently hurt his leg while playing football.  Dr. G diag-
nosed  the  applicant  with  “Adjustment  Disorder  with  Mixed  Anxiety  and 
Depressed Mood” and “Antisocial and Paranoid Traits.”  The psychologist con-
cluded that the applicant had “difficulty with authority and structure” and was 
maladjusted to a military lifestyle.  She noted that he “utilizes rationalization and 
externalization of blame and lacks insight into the role his own behavior plays in 
his difficulties, thereby making a change in his behavior very unlikely.”  Dr. G 
“strongly recommended administrative separation based on the diagnosis of an 
adjustment  disorder”  and  “strongly  recommended  that  [he]  not  be  able  to  re-
enlist in the military.” 

 
 
On November 10, 1999, the officer in charge (OIC) of the applicant’s unit 
informed him that he was initiating the applicant’s administrative discharge due 
to  the  diagnosed  adjustment  disorder.    The  OIC  noted  that  the  applicant  had 
been slow in achieving qualifications and had expressed a desire to be released 
from the Coast Guard on numerous occasions.   
 

On November 17, 1999, the applicant waived his right to submit a state-
ment on his own behalf and noted that he did not object to being discharged.  He 
stated  that  he  regretted  enlisting  on  active  duty  and  would  rather  be  in  the 
Reserve or National Guard.   

 
On  November  19,  1999,  the  OIC  recommended  to  the  Coast  Guard  Per-
sonnel Command (CGPC) that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability due 
to his diagnosed adjustment disorder.  The OIC noted that the applicant “has dif-
ficulty accepting orders and in general, he is having an extremely difficult time 
adjusting to the military lifestyle.”  The OIC wrote that the applicant’s “mental 
condition and behavior are unpredictable and unacceptable and he should not be 
allowed to enter any branch of the military.”   

 
On December 28, 1999, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged for 
unsuitability  with  the  JFX  (personality  disorder)  separation  code  and  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code. 
 

On  January  8,  2000,  a  Navy  orthopedic  surgeon  reported  that  the 
applicant had had a “complete anterior cruciate ligament tear” with a “possible 
meniscal  tear”  in  his  right  knee  and  was  “unable  to  fully  extend  his  knee.”  
Therefore, the applicant had undergone reconstructive surgery on December 13, 
1999.    During  surgery,  the  surgeon  had  discovered  “a  severe  complex  bucket 
handle tear, which was not repairable, so the majority of his lateral meniscus was 
removed.”    The  surgeon  stated  that  the  applicant  would  require  six  months  of 
intensive rehabilitation and that “his premature discharge from the Coast Guard 
would harm his chances for an excellent result from his surgery. … At the end of 
six months, I can better determine any type of potential disability for his future 
and whether or not he will require a medical board at that time.”  The surgeon 
noted that the applicant was currently serving in a limited duty status and was 
not deployable. 
 
 
On January 11, 2000, the applicant underwent a discharge physical exami-
nation.  On a Report of Medical History, he noted his recent knee surgery and 
ongoing  knee  pain  and  cramps.    Dr.  N  found  that  his  knee  condition  was  not 
disqualifying,  pursuant  to  Article  2.C.2.e.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation 
System  (PDES)  Manual,  and  found  him  qualified  for  separation  in  accordance 

with  Chapter  3-F-16.c.  of  the  Medical  Manual.    Dr.  N  noted  that  the  applicant 
should  continue  rehabilitation  therapy  for  his  knee.    Dr.  N  also  noted  that  the 
applicant  suffered  from  an  “Adjustment  Disorder  with  Mixed  Disturbance  of 
Emotion and Conduct” but had “no permanent disqualifying physical or mental 
defects.”   
 

On January 13, 2000, the applicant signed a form objecting to the results of 
the examination and stating that he did not agree that he was able to perform his 
duties  or  had  a  “high  expectation  of  recovery  in  the  near  term  from  illness, 
injury,  or  surgical  procedure  such  that  I  would  again  be  able  to  perform  my 
usual duties.” 

 
On  January  18,  2000,  the  applicant  sent  CGPC  a  written  statement  of 
objection to being found fit for discharge.  He stated that he wanted to remain on 
active duty until he had completed rehabilitation treatment for his knee.  He also 
asked  for  another  psychological  evaluation.    He  stated  that  Dr.  G’s  evaluation 
was “biased and tainted with frustration that I created.” 
 
 
On  January  20,  2000,  the  applicant’s  command  notified  CGPC  that  the 
applicant had refused to disclose whether he had submitted a written objection 
regarding  the  finding  of  fitness  for  separation  to  CGPC.    On  January  24,  2000, 
CGPC  informed  the  command  that  the  applicant’s  case  had  been  carefully 
reviewed and that he  had been found  fit for separation by both the examining 
physician and the medical staff at CGPC.  CGPC noted that the applicant could 
continue his physical therapy after his separation.  CPGC ordered the command 
to effect the applicant’s separation. 
 

On January 26, 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged with a JFX 
separation  code,  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code,  and  “Personality  Disorder”  as  the 
narrative reason for separation on his DD 214, in accordance with Article 12.B.16. 
of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
On July 23, 2001, a clinical psychologist, Dr. M, reported that the applicant 
“presented with vague complaints of mood disorder that have eluded firm diag-
nosis” and complained that he had not been selected for several jobs for which 
was well qualified.  Dr. M stated that the applicant explained that he had not “fit 
in” in the Coast Guard because it “isn’t very integrated and I don’t go to clubs, I 
don’t drink, I don’t like country music, I don’t like NASCAR.”  He noted that the 
applicant  could  not  explain  why  he  had  reenlisted  except  that  he  “had  hoped 
things would go smoother and be more tolerable during his second tour but they 
were not.”  Dr. M reported that test results showed the following: 
 

Results  did  NOT  suggest  problems  with  depression,  anxiety,  paranoia,  PTSD, 
psychosis,  substance  abuse,  or  prominent  antisocial  personality  features.    As 
such,  results  were  inconsistent  with  [the  applicant’s]  prior  personality  disorder 
diagnosis.  [He] did demonstrate a significant elevation on one scale sensitive to 
manic-like symptoms.  However, examination of relevant subscales indicates that 
elevation was due to stable character features reflecting exaggerated self-impor-
tance,  self-centeredness,  cynicism,  stubbornness  and  a  tendency  to  be  overly 
opinionated.  He does not demonstrate such characteristics to a clinically debili-
tating  level.  …    [The  applicant]  does  not  appear  to  meet  diagnostic  criteria  for 
any mental health disorder at this time.  A prior diagnosis of personality disorder 
(paranoid/antisocial  traits)  does  not  appear  consistent  with  his  overall  history 
nor with current test results. 
 
 
On July 13, 2004, the Commandant of the Coast Guard approved the rec-
ommendation of the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and denied the applicant’s 
request for an upgraded reenlistment code, separation code, and narrative reason 
for  separation.    The  DRB  noted  that  “two  separate  military  doctors  diagnosed 
applicant with a personality disorder.” 
 
 
On July 26, 2005, the DVA informed the applicant that his 10% disability 
rating for post-traumatic arthritis in his right knee would be continued but that 
service connection for his adjustment disorder, “also claimed as personality dis-
order,” was denied.  The DVA stated that the denial was based on a lack of any 
evidence of a “permanent residual or chronic disability.”  The DVA also stated 
that at an examination on June 17, 2005, the examiner found “no diagnosis of cur-
rent  psychiatric  disorder”  and  noted  that  his  “previous  diagnosis  has  resolved 
[since] you were removed from the situation which was causing your stress.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On August 9, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief 
by correcting the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge to “Condition, Not A 
Disability” and his separation code to JFV.  However, he recommended that the 
Board not upgrade the applicant’s reenlistment code. 
 
 
The JAG adopted as part of his advisory opinion a memorandum on the 
case prepared by CGPC.  CGPC stated that the applicant was discharged due to a 
diagnosed adjustment disorder, rather than a personality disorder, and so should 
have  been  discharged 
the 
corresponding JFV separation code.  CGPC also stated, however, that the record 
indicates that the applicant should not be considered for future reenlistment in 
the  military.    CGPC  stated  that  upgrading  the  RE-4  to  an  RE-3G  would 
circumvent the recommendation of the clinical psychologist, Dr. G.  CGPC stated 

for  a  “Condition,  Not  A  Disability”  with 

the separation authority for discharging someone due to a condition that is not a 
disability is Article 12.B.6. of the Personnel Manual.  
 
The JAG argued that “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary,” the Board 
 
must presume that the doctors involved in the applicant’s discharge “carried out 
their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 
1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir.  1992);  Sanders  v.  United  States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl. 
1979).  He argued that the medical records show that Dr. G took into considera-
tion the applicant’s boating incident, medical history, and family history before 
strongly  recommending  that  the  applicant  be  separated  and  not  be  allowed  to 
reenlist  in  the  military.    He  stated  that  the  record  also  shows  that  it  was  the 
applicant who was curt and uncooperative during the evaluation.  Moreover, the 
JAG pointed out, the applicant did not object to his discharge.  He argued that 
the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his RE-4 
reenlistment code is erroneous or unjust. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  16,  2005,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 
Guard.    The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  grant  full  relief  as  the  rules  allow  a 
member being discharged due to a condition, not a disability, to receive an RE-
3G.    The  applicant  complained  that  Dr.  G  was  not  professional  as  she  did  not 
offer him relief, medication, or other remedies.  He stated that she took the side 
of his command and was biased against him.  The applicant argued that since the 
Coast Guard has admitted that he was discharged due to an adjustment disorder, 
which is temporary, he should receive the RE-3G.  He also argued that the RE-4 
is unjust because it stops him from reenlisting in any military service, but he has 
not been in all of the military branches. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted 
personnel with diagnosed personality disorders that are listed in Chapter 5 of the 
Medical  Manual  to  be  discharged  by  reason  of  unsuitability  at  the  direction  of 
the Commandant.  
 
 
Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual lists personality disorders that qual-
ify  a  member  for  administrative  discharge  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.  of  the  Per-
sonnel  Manual.    Adjustment  disorders  are  not  included  among  the  personality 
disorders  listed  in  Chapter  5.B.2.  of  the  Medical  Manual.    Chapter  5.B.3  of  the 
Medical Manual states that adjustment disorders “are generally treatable and not 
usually  grounds  for  separation,”  but  that  members  with  adjustment  disorders 
may be administratively discharged “when these conditions persist or treatment 

is likely to be prolonged or non-curative (e.g. inability to adjust to military life 
…).”    Chapter  3.F.16.d  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  adjustment  disorders 
“do not render an individual unfit because of physical impairment.  However, if 
these conditions are recurrent and interfere with military duty, are not amenable 
to  treatment,  or  require  prolonged  treatment,  administrative  separation  should 
be recommended (see Section 5-B).” 

 

 
Article  12.B.16.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  every  member 
discharged under the article shall be notified of the reason he is being considered 
for  discharge  and  shall  be  allowed  to  submit  a  statement  on  his  own  behalf.  
Article 12.B.16.h. provides that every member “under consideration for discharge 
for unsuitability must have a physical examination performed by a Public Health 
Service or Armed Forces medical officer.  If one is not available locally, a contract 
physician may perform the exam.”   
 
 
Article 1.E. of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms 
states that a member’s DD 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. 
 
 
narrative reasons for separation which might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

The  SPD  Handbook  includes  the  following  combinations  of  codes  and 

SPD 
Code 
JFX 

Narrative Reason 
for Separation 
Personality 
Disorder 

JFV 

Condition, Not a 
Disability 

RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

12.B.12 

JND  Miscellaneous/ 

General Reasons 

RE-1 or 
RE-4 

12.B.12. 

 

RE Code 
RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.16 

 
Explanation 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when a 
personality disorder exists, not amounting to a 
disability, which potentially interferes with 
assignment to or performance of duty. 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when a 
condition, not a physical disability, interferes 
with the performance of duty (Enuresis, motion 
sickness, allergy, obesity, fear of flying, et al.) 
Involuntary discharge [by direction] when a 
Service component does not have a Service 
reporting requirement for specific reasons and 
desires to identify reasons collectively “All 
other reasons” which qualify a member for 
separation. 

 
Under Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual, a member’s commanding 
 
officer  has  authority  to  decide  which  of  the  permissible  RE  codes  listed  in  the 
SPD Handbook the member is assigned. 
 

Article 12.B.12.a.12. of the Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted personnel 
with  a  diagnosed  “condition  that,  though  not  a  physical  disability,  interferes 

with performance of duty” to be discharged for the convenience of the Govern-
ment.   
 

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 sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.   

 
2. 

Although the applicant filed his application more than three years 
after his discharge, he filed it within three years of having timely filed an appli-
cation with the DRB, which has a fifteen-year statute of limitations.  Therefore, 
the Board finds that the application is timely in accordance with the decision in 
Ortiz v. Sec’y of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994). 
 

3. 

The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  due  to  a 
diagnosed adjustment disorder, not a personality disorder.  An adjustment dis-
order  is  not  a  personality  disorder.3    There  are  a  limited  number  of  separation 
codes available to the Coast Guard; they cannot be tailor-made to reflect exactly 
the circumstances of each member’s discharge.  Therefore, a member sometimes 
receives a separation  code and narrative reason for separation that do not per-
fectly reflect the cause of his discharge.  Nonetheless, because civilian employers 
often demand to see former servicemembers’ DD 214s prior to hiring them, it is 
extremely  important  for  DD  214s  to  be  fair  and  not  to  unduly  tarnish  service-
members’ records without just cause and substantial evidence.  The record con-
tains  several  doctors’  evaluations  that  state  that  the  applicant  does  not  have  a 
personality disorder.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the JAG and CGPC that 
the  applicant’s  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  for  separation  should  be 
corrected to JFV and “Condition, Not A Disability” because an adjustment dis-
order  is  a  normally  temporary  medical  condition  that  does  not  constitute  a 
physical disability. 

 
4. 

The article of the Personnel Manual that authorizes the discharge of 
a  member  for  a  condition  that  is  not  a  disability  is  Article  12.B.12.,  rather  than 
Article  12.B.16.  or  Article  12.B.6.  (as  indicated  by  CGPC).    Therefore,  the  dis-
charge authority noted on the applicant’s DD 214 should also be corrected to be 
consistent with his narrative reason for discharge. 
                                                 
3 Coast Guard Medical Manual, Chap. 5.B.2.; American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND 
STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT  REVISION  (2000)  (DSM-IV-
TR), p. 679. 

 
5. 

 
The  applicant  asked  that  his  discharge  be  upgraded  to  RE-1  or  at 
least RE-3G.  He submitted doctors’ reports indicating that his adjustment disor-
der has abated since he left active duty.  He also submitted several employment 
references  showing  that  he  has  been  successful  in  civilian  life.    However,  the 
applicant’s  record  contains  several  doctors’  statements  indicating  that  he  was 
unable to adapt to a military lifestyle.  During his two enlistments, the applicant 
was repeatedly described by doctors and superior officers as hostile, disruptive, 
frustrated, volatile, argumentative, and disrespectful toward superiors.  A doctor 
reported on October 27, 1999, that the applicant admitted to having had thoughts 
of harming his fellow servicemembers.  Moreover, according to Dr. G’s notes, the 
applicant  stated  on  November  2,  1999,  that  he  had  difficulty  with  “the  lack  of 
freedom”  in  the  Coast  Guard.    He  told  her  on  November  9,  1999,  that  taking 
orders made him feel like a “slave.”  Following orders is an inherent part of all 
military service.  In light of his medical and military records, the Board finds that 
the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the RE-4 
reenlistment code on his DD 214 is erroneous or unjust.   

 
6. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request to have his RE code upgraded 
should be denied, but the partial relief described in findings 3 and 4 should be 
granted.  

  

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
Block 25 on his DD 214 shall be corrected to show that he was discharged 
under  the  authority  of  Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1000.6A). 

 
Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code 

JFV. 

 
Block 28 shall be corrected to show “CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY” 

as the narrative reason for separation. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  the  applicant  a  new  DD  214  with  these 

corrections made in the original (not by hand and not by issuing a DD 215). 

 
No other relief is granted. 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
______________________________ 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 
 

______________________________ 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

______________________________ 
 David Morgan Frost