DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-091 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, FN (Former) 
 
   

 

 
 

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  April  8,  2005,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records.1 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 8, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by changing his RE-

3P2 reenlistment code to one that would allow him to enlist in the Air Force.   

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on May 12, 1998, for a four-year term.  
He  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  March  1,  2000,  by  reason  of  physical 

                                                 
1      Although  the  application  was  not  docketed  until  April  8,  2005,  the  Board  initially  received  the 
applicant's request in October 2004.   
 
2    RE-3P  reenlistment  code  means  that  the  applicant  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  the 
disqualifying factor:  physical disability.  See COMDTINST M 1900.4D.   
 

disability  due  to  an  anxiety  disorder  rated  as  10%  disabling,  for  which  he  received 
severance pay.    He was given a JFL3 separation code and an RE-3P reenlistment code.   
At the time of his discharge he had served a total of one year, nine months, and twenty 
days on active duty. 

 
The applicant alleged that the reason his reenlistment code should be changed is 
because of the "loss of commitment by the US Coast Guard of school.  [T]he wait ended 
up being a two year wait so they said I would have the choice to stay in E-3 grade, but 
receive  penalties  or  I  could  sign  a  document  saying  [that]  I  [would]  receive  an 
honorable  discharge  as  time  served  duty  fulfilled."      He  stated  that  he  would  like  to 
serve his country and is trying to join the Air Force, but his RE-3P reenlistment code is 
hindering that effort.  He provided no explanation why the Board should find it in the 
interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations,  even  though  approximately  four 
and  a  half  years  had  elapsed  at  the  time  he  filed  his  correction  application  with  the 
Board.   
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

 
 
On  October  14,  1999,  a  medical  board  (MB)4  was  convened  to  evaluate  the 
applicant's  physical  condition.    The  MB  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  suffering  from 
anxiety disorder.  The MB found that he was unfit and would never be fit for duty.  The 
MB also found that the applicant had a mathematics and reading disorder, neither of 
which is a ratable condition.       

 
 
The applicant was notified that the MB had recommended a finding of unfit for 
duty  and  referred  his  case  to  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (CPEB)  5.    On 
October 18, 1999, the applicant acknowledged the findings and recommendations of the 
MB and his desire not to submit a statement in rebuttal.    
 

                                                 
3   JFL separation code is assigned for an involuntary discharge directed by established directive resulting 
from physical disability with entitlement to severance pay.  It also designates RE-3P as the appropriate 
reenlistment code for this type of separation.  See Separation Program Designator Handbook. 
 
4      The  purpose  of  a  Medical  Board  is  to  evaluate  and  report  upon  the  present  state  of  health  of  any 
member who may be referred to the medical board by an authorized convening authority and provide a 
recommendation as to whether the member is medically fit for the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, 
or  rating.    See  Chapter  3.A.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1850.2C). 
5   The Central Physical Evaluation Board is a permanently established administrative body convened to 
evaluated on a records basis the fitness for duty of active and reserve members and the fitness for duty of 
members on the temporary disability retired list.  See Chapter 4.A.1. of the Physical Disability Evaluation 
System Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C). 
 

 
On October 22, 1999, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) commented on the 
MB  and  agreed  with  the  recommendation.    The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant's 
performance  over  the past  year  had  been  unsatisfactory.    He  explained  that  although 
the applicant was able to complete routine tasks if given very specific directions, when 
placed in stressful situations or when asked to complete tasks not detailed step-by-step, 
the  applicant  experienced  difficulty.      The  CO  stated  that  due  to  the  applicant's 
difficulty with decision-making and judgment, he did not have the skills necessary to 
become  a  crewman  or  boarding  team  member.        The  CO  further  stated  that  the 
applicant's underway and inport watchstander qualifications had been revoked due to 
his inability to make sound decisions in stressful situations.   
 
 
The  CPEB  met  on  December  13,  1999,  and  determined  that  the  applicant  was 
unfit to perform the duties of his grade. The CPEB recommended that the applicant be 
separated from the Coast Guard with severance pay, due to a 10% disability rating for 
anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified.    
 
 
recommended disposition and waived his right to a formal hearing.   
 
 
known as the JAG) and found to be correct and supported by the evidence of record.   
 
 
On  January  20,  2000,  the  Chief  of  the  Administrative  Division  (for  the 
Commandant)  ordered  the  applicant  to  be  separated  from  the  Coast  Guard  with 
severance pay due to a physical disability.   
 

On  January  2,  2000,  the  applicant  accepted  the  CPEB's  tentative  findings  and 

On January 18, 2000, the proceedings were reviewed by the Chief Counsel (now 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  26,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request to have his RE-3P reenlistment code changed. 
 

In  recommending  denial  of  relief,  the  JAG  argued  that  the  application  was 
untimely.    He  stated  that  applications  for  correction of  military records  must  be  filed 
within three years of the date the alleged error or injustice was, or should have been, 
discovered.  33 CFR § 52.22.  He said that the Board may waive the statute of limitations 
and consider the case if an applicant presents sufficient evidence that it is in the interest 
of justice to do so.  The JAG stated that the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, 
and the likelihood of the applicant's success on the merits of his claim are factors to be 
considered in deciding whether to waive the statute of limitations.  The JAG stated that 
the  applicant  offered  no  explanation  or  justification  for  his  delay  in  discovering  the 
alleged error or injustice within three years of his discharge.  According to the JAG the 
applicant has not provided good cause for not filing his application sooner.       

 

With respect to the merits of his claim, the JAG argued that the applicant has not 
presented  any  evidence  supporting  his  claim  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in 
characterizing his service upon his discharge. To the contrary, according to the JAG, the 
record shows that the applicant was properly separated from the Coast Guard after a 
determination that the applicant had a physical disability that caused him to be unfit for 
duty.  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).    Moreover,  he  stated  that  the 
applicant  bears  the  burden  of  proving  error  under  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24,  and  that  he  has 
failed to meet his burden in this case. case.   
 
 
A  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) was attached as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.  CGPC stated that the 
applicant's discharge was properly completed and accurately depicts the circumstances 
of the applicant's discharge.  CGPC further stated that if the applicant wishes to enlist in 
the Air Force, he can apply at a local recruiting office where it would be left to the Air 
Force to decide if the applicant should be granted an enlistment waiver. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  29,  2005,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond.  The Board did not receive a response from 
the applicant to the views of the Coast Guard. 
 

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 applicant's request is not timely 
 
 
2. To be timely, an application or request for correction of a military record must 
be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or  should  have 
discovered the alleged error or injustice.  See 33 CFR 52.22.  The statute of limitation on 
the applicant's claim expired on March 1, 2003, three years after his discharge from the 
Coast Guard.  
 

4.  However, the Board may still consider the application on the merits, if it finds 
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 
stated 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). 

 
5.  The applicant did not state the date on which he discovered the alleged error 
or injustice.  However, the Board finds that he should have discovered it at the time of 
his discharge from the Coast Guard because the DD Form 214 clearly states the reason 
for  the  applicant's  discharge  and  lists  RE-3P  as  his  reenlistment  code.    Moreover,  the 
applicant did not provide the Board with any reason for an interest of justice waiver of 
the statute of limitations.   
 

6.  With respect to the merits of his claim, the Board finds that the applicant is not 
likely to prevail on them.  The record establishes that the applicant was separated from 
the Coast Guard due to a physical disability and that his DD Form 214 was  correctly 
prepared with the appropriate separation and reenlistment codes.  There is nothing in 
the  record  to  suggest  that  the  reason  for  the  applicant's  discharge  was  other  than 
physical  disability  due  to  an  anxiety  disorder.    According  to  the  Separation  Program 
Designator Handbook, RE-3P is the appropriate reenlistment code for a separation by 
reason of physical disability.   

 
7.  The RE-3 reenlistment code does not prevent the applicant from reenlisting in 
the Air Force, but it does require that he obtain a waiver to do so.  It is up to the Air 
Force to determine whether such a waiver should be granted.    
  

8.  Accordingly, due to the lack of reasons for not filing his application sooner 
and 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. The application should be 
denied because it is untimely. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Kevin M. Walker 

 

 

 
 Richard Walter 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton