DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-143 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Xxx xx xxxxx, SR/E-1 (former) 
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Hale, D. 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on August 11, 
2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 26, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant, a former seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1) who served 23 days 
 
in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his reenlistment 
code from RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment) to RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment except 
for  a  disqualifying  factor).    He  alleged  that  he  has  been  denied  employment  because 
many potential employers view his RE-4 reenlistment code as representing a “discharge 
of  integrity,  dishonesty,  and  lying.”    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  wrongfully 
discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  for  misconduct  after  he  was  accused  of  failing  to 
reveal his history of migraine headaches upon his enlistment.  He further alleged that 
he disclosed this fact during his pre-entry physical and at several times during his short 
tenure  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  also  noted  that  he  already  petitioned  the 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) and that it upgraded the narrative reason for discharge 
on his DD Form 214 from “misconduct” to “physical standards,” but that the DRB did 
not upgrade his reenlistment code.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The  record  contains  a  medical  screening  form,  dated  December  1,  1995, 
completed by the applicant in preparation for his pre-enlistment physical.  On the form 
he indicated that he had taken the drug Cafergot1 at age 4 for headaches, but that he 
had  not  taken  the  medication  since  then.    On  December  4,  1995,  the  applicant 
underwent  a  pre-enlistment  physical  examination  at  a  Military  Entrance  Processing 
Station  (MEPS)  to  determine  his  physical  qualifications  for  enlistment.    The  applicant 
completed  another  report  of  medical  history  dated  December  4,  1995,  on  which  he 
indicated  that  he  did  not  have,  nor  did  he  ever  have,  “frequent  or  severe  headache.”  
The Chief Medical Officer who examined the applicant at the MEPS station determined 
that he was qualified for duty in the Coast Guard and he enlisted in the Coast Guard on 
February 6, 1996. 

 
On February 7, 1996, the applicant completed a pre-training physical at the Coast 
Guard Training Center (TRACEN) Cape May.  The applicant completed another report 
of medical history and indicated that he had or has “frequent or severe headache.”  The 
physician performing the physical indicated on the bottom of the medical history form 
that  the  applicant  might  have  had  pediatric  migraines  in  the  past  but  that  he  [the 
applicant]  had  not  experienced  any  episodes  as  an  adult.    The  examining  physician 
noted that the applicant was qualified for training and active duty in the Coast Guard. 

 
On  February  13,  1996,  the  applicant  reported  to  one  of  the  training  center’s 
emergency  clinics  complaining  of  a  migraine  that  he  had  been  experiencing  for  three 
days.  After examining the applicant, the physician’s assistant (PA) determined that he 
was  suffering  from  a  migraine  headache.    The  PA  also  noted  that  the  applicant  had 
experienced another migraine episode approximately two weeks earlier and had a 10-
year history of migraines.  The applicant was admitted to the hospital for treatment and 
observation of his migraine.   

 
On  February  14,  1996,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  hospital  and  the 
Senior  Medical  Officer  wrote  a  memorandum  to  the  applicant’s  Battalion  Officer 
wherein  he  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  because  of  his  medical 
condition  (migraine  headaches).    The  Senior  Medical  Officer  also  assigned  another 
medical  officer  to  conduct  a  medical  board  to  determine  the  applicant’s  fitness  for 
continued service in the Coast Guard. 

 
On  February  22,  1996,  the  Coast  Guard  conducted  a  “substitution  physical 
examination”  of  the  applicant  to  determine  his  fitness  for  continued  duty.    The 
examining  PA  diagnosed  him  with  a  history  of  recurrent  migraine  headaches  that 
existed prior to enlistment.  The PA noted that the applicant was “fit for duty – for the 
purpose of discharge from the Coast Guard only.”  The narrative summary completed 
                                                 
1 Cafergot is the trade name for the drug containing ergotamine tartrate and caffeine, and is commonly 
used in the prevention of vascular headaches.  At  www.pharma.us.novartis.com/products/name/cafergot.jsp  (last 
visited April 5, 2006).  

by the PA who evaluated the applicant noted that he was recommending his discharge 
for  recurrent  migraines  because  the  pre-enlistment  physical  conducted  at  the  MEPS 
station had failed to reveal 

 
[a] long-standing history of migraine headaches.  [Applicant] states that he was 
diagnosed  with  migraines  as  a  young  child.    [Applicant]  would  have  2-3 
episodes per week until age 11 or 12, when his pattern of headaches would be 2-3 
a month.  This migraine history continued up until his arrival at TRACEN Cape 
May.  [Applicant] used Cafergot to treat his headaches and was advised to use 
Imitrex, but declined.  [Applicant] states that he disclosed his migraine history to 
the medical doctor at MEPS. 
 
At the conclusion of the substitution physical exam, the applicant was provided 
with a document notifying him that his diagnosis disqualified him from service in the 
Coast Guard.  The applicant indicated that he did not want to request a waiver.   
 

On  February  28,  1996,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard 
pursuant  to  Article  12.B.18.2  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    He  received  a 
discharge “under honorable conditions,” a separation code of JDT3, and “misconduct” 
as his narrative reason for separation.  The record indicates that the applicant received 
an RE-4 reenlistment code (not eligible for reenlistment).  He had served in the Coast 
Guard for 23 days. 

 
Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant petitioned the DRB 
for  a  change  of  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  listed  on  his  DD  Form  214.    The 
applicant  asked  the  DRB  to  change  the  narrative  reason  from  “misconduct”  to 
“medical.”  On May 1, 2004, the DRB approved the applicant's request and changed the 
narrative  reason  for  separation  on  his  DD  214  from  “misconduct”  to  “physical 
standards.”  In addition, the DRB changed the discharge authority from 12.B.18. of the 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual to 12.B.12.4 of the Personnel Manual.  On July 15, 2004, 
the Commandant reviewed the DRB’s decision and approved its findings.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  December  22,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  Coast  Guard 

                                                 
2 Article 12.B.18. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes discharge for members who procure a 
fraudulent  enlistment,  induction,  or  period  of  active  service  through  any  deliberate  material 
misrepresentation,  omission,  or  concealment  which,  if  known  at  the  time,  might  have  resulted  in 
rejection. 
3 JDT denotes an involuntary discharge when a member procured a fraudulent enlistment, induction or 
period  of  military  service  through  deliberate  material  misrepresentation,  omission,  or  concealment  of 
drug use/abuse.  SPD Handbook, Pg. 2-23. 
4 Article 12.B.12. of the Manual authorizes discharge of personnel for a medical condition. 

Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s 
request.  
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s discharge for physical standards as determined 
 
by  the  DRB  is  consistent  with  Coast  Guard  policy  and  that  RE-4  is  the  appropriate 
reenlistment  code  given  the  applicant’s  character  of  service.    However,  CGPC  stated 
that  although  the  applicant  did  not  specifically  request  that  the  BCMR  upgrade  his 
character of service, his record of service does not justify a general discharge, “under 
honorable conditions.”  CGPC noted that there are no negative administrative remarks 
or punitive actions in the applicant’s record during his 23 days of active service and that 
the  DRB  determined  that  the  applicant  did,  in  fact,  reveal  his  history  of  migraine 
headaches prior to enlistment.  Accordingly, the CGPC argued that the applicant’s DD 
214 should reflect that he received an honorable discharge with an RE-3G reenlistment 
code  because  those  changes  would  be  consistent  with  a  member  discharged  for  the 
convenience  of  the  government  because  of  an  inability  to  meet  physical  readiness 
standards.  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 4, 2006, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant responded on March 
11, 2006, and did not object to the Coast Guard’s recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  12.B.18.b.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the 
Commander  may  authorize  a  discharge  for  misconduct  for  members  procuring  a 
fraudulent  enlistment,  induction,  or  period  of  active  service  through  any  deliberate 
material  misrepresentation,  omission,  or  concealment  which,  if  known  at  the  time, 
might have resulted in rejection.  
 

Article  12.B.12.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  the  Commander  may 
authorize  or  direct  the  separation  of  enlisted  members  for  a  number  of  reasons, 
including a condition, not a physical disability, that interferes with the performance of 
duty.  
 
 
The  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook  includes  the  following 
combinations of codes and narrative reasons for separation, which might apply to the 
applicant’s case: 
 
SPD 
Code 

 
Explanation 

Separation 
Authority 

Narrative 
Reason for 
Separation 
Fraudulent entry  RE-4 

 

RE Code 

JDT 

12.B.18. 

Involuntarily discharge when a member procured a  

Into military 
service, drug 
abuse 
Physical 
standards 

RE-4 or  
RE-3G 

12.B.12. 

fraudulent enlistment, induction or period of military  
service through deliberate material misrepresentation,  
omission, or concealment of drug use/abuse. 
Involuntary discharge when a member fails to meet  
established physical readiness standards. 

JFT 

 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 
§ 1552.  An application to the Board must be filed within three years after the applicant 
discovered  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.5  
Although  the  applicant  filed  his  application  more  than  three  years  after  he  knew  or 
should have known that he received a discharge for misconduct, he filed it within three 
years of having timely filed an application with the DRB, which has a 15-year statute of 
limitations.  Therefore, the applicant has exhausted his administrative remedies and his 
application is considered timely.6  
 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  although  the  DRB  already  upgraded  the 
narrative  reason  for  separation  on  his  DD  214  from  “misconduct”  to  “physical 
standards,”  he  is  still  harmed  by  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    In  fact,  the  applicant 
alleged  that  he  has  been  denied  employment  because  some  employers  view  his  RE-4 
reenlistment  code  as  representing  “a  discharge  of  integrity,  dishonesty,  and  lying.”    
However,  nothing  in  the  applicant’s  Coast  Guard  record  indicates  why  he  should 
receive  an  RE-4,  which  many  consider  derogatory.    The  applicant’s  record  does  not 
contain any negative administrative remarks or punitive actions during his 23 days of 
service,  and  the  DRB  already  determined  that  the  applicant  did,  in  fact,  reveal  his 
history of migraine headaches prior to his enlistment.  The Board agrees with the DRB 
that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant fraudulently concealed 
his history of headaches prior to his enlistment.  

 
3. 

The  JAG  recommended  that  the  Board  upgrade  the  applicant’s  reenlist-
ment  code  to  RE-3G  to  be  consistent  with  the  applicant’s  discharge  for  his  failure  to 
maintain physical readiness.  The DRB  changed the narrative reason for discharge on 
the  applicant’s  DD  214  from  “misconduct”  to  “physical  standards”  and  changed  the 
separation  authority  from  Article  12.B.18.  to  Article  12.B.12. of  the  Personnel  Manual. 
Article 12.B.12. of the Manual permits an RE-3G reenlistment code as well as an RE-4 for 

                                                 
5 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
6 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b); Ortiz v. Sec’y of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994). 

a discharge resulting from a member’s failure to meet physical readiness standards.  In 
light of the fact that the applicant’s record is devoid of anything derogatory and that the 
DRB changed the narrative reason for discharge to “physical standards,” the applicant’s 
reenlistment code should be upgraded from RE-4 to RE-3G in accordance with Article 
12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
4. 

Although  the  applicant  did  not  specifically  request  a  change  to  the 
character  of  service  listed  on  his  DD  214,  the  JAG  recommended  that  the  applicant’s 
character  of  service  should  be  changed  from  “under  honorable  conditions”  to 
“honorable.”  The Board agrees.  Nothing in the applicant’s record justifies his general 
discharge.  
 

5. 

In light of the applicant’s allegations and the JAG’s recommendations, the 
Board finds that his DD 214 should be corrected to show a reenlistment code of RE-3G 
and  the  character  of  service  as  “honorable.”    The  Coast  Guard  should  issue  the 
applicant a new  DD 214 so that the erroneous derogatory information on his original 
DD 214 — such as the JDT separation code denoting drug abuse — need not be seen by 
future employers.   

 

 

 

 

  

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

his military record is granted as follows: 

 
Block 24 shall be corrected to show “Honorable” as the character of service. 

 
 

Block 27 shall be corrected to show RE-3G as the reenlistment code. 
 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  the  applicant  a  new  DD  214  reflecting  these 
corrected entries as well as the corrections made by the DRB.  The following notation 
may be made in Block 18 of the DD 214:  “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 George A. Weller