DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-158 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 Chair docketed this 
case on September 6, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  20,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

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  his  reenlistment 
code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) to RE-1 (eligible) or RE-3 (eligible with waiver of 
disqualifying condition).  The applicant stated that when he was honorably discharged 
on January 15, 1995, he had been having “personal marital problems.”  He argued that 
it is erroneous and unfair that his reenlistment code prevents him from reenlisting even 
after those problems have been straightened out.  He alleged that he has grown more 
mature since his discharge and now handles problems in an adult manner. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On August 17, 1993, at the age of 18, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  
Upon completing boot camp, he advanced from seaman recruit to SA.  He was initially 
assigned to a unit in Hawaii.   
 

On April 14, 1994, the applicant sought help for “personal problems.”  He com-
plained  of  feeling  depressed  since  his  enlistment.    He  stated  that  he  felt  stressed  and 
had had thoughts of suicide.  He complained of low self-esteem and decreased enjoy-
ment in his usual recreational activities.  The doctor diagnosed him with mild depres-
sion.  In May 1994, at his own request and expense, the applicant was transferred to a 
unit close to his home in Texas. 
 
 
On  August  1,  1994,  a  chief  warrant  officer  counseled  the  applicant  that  “being 
late for work is not acceptable. … Any further incidence of this sort will result in more 
drastic administrative action.” 
 
 
On September 6, 1994, the unit’s Executive Officer (XO) counseled the applicant 
about a “continued pattern in arriving late to work.  Member has been counseled on his 
tardiness on several occasions. … [M]ost recently a Report of Offense and Disposition 
(CG-4910) was executed and fully investigated.  Because of the personal reasons related 
to member reporting late to work, CG-4910 was dismissed.  As a result, a follow-up pro-
fessional counseling has been arranged and member is advised that any further tardi-
ness or actions in non-conformance with military regulations will result in absolute dis-
ciplinary action and punishment.” 
 
 
On September 7, 1994, the applicant was referred to a psychologist by the Coast 
Guard  Employee  Assistance  Program.    The  psychologist  reported  that  the  applicant 
complained  of  marital  problems  and  suicidal  ideations.    The  applicant  admitted  to 
drinking  about  one  beer  per  weekend  and  to  having  been  drunk  just  one  time  three 
years earlier.  The psychologist diagnosed him with marital discord and “Major Depres-
sion, Single Episode without psychotic features [but] with suicidal ideations.”  The psy-
chologist noted that the applicant refused to take medication. 
 
 
On  September  16,  1994,  the  applicant  was  escorted  to  a  mental  health  facility 
after  voicing  suicidal  ideations  to  his  supervisors.    The  applicant  admitted  to  having 
written letters to his wife with threats of suicide to get her attention.  He alleged that his 
wife had been unfaithful to him twice and planned to leave him.  Upon admittance to 
the  hospital,  he  was  provisionally  diagnosed  with  “Major  Depression,  Single  Episode 
without  psychotic  features  [but]  with  suicidal  ideations.”    The  doctors’  notes  indicate 
that  he  had  been  married  for  five  months  to  a  17-year-old  girl  who  refused  to  go  to 
counseling with him because she had previously spent time in an institution.  The appli-
cant complained that his wife had been unfaithful and had separated from him twice 
since the wedding to live in their hometown in order to be with her child.  Upon dis-
charge from the hospital on September 23, 1994, the applicant was diagnosed with an 
adjustment disorder, 1 marital problems, and depression. 
                                                 
1 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 
usually  temporary  and  disappear  when  the  stressor  does.    Adjustment  disorders  are  not  personality 

 
 
On  October  7,  1994,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  notified  him  in 
writing that his previous four months of performance had been unsatisfactory and that 
he was being placed on performance probation.  The CO noted that he was frequently 
late to work, did not perform his duties to standard, was financially irresponsible, and 
was making no effort to advance.  The CO advised the applicant that if his performance 
did not improve within six months he would be discharged.  The CO also advised the 
applicant that he could be discharged “at any time during the six-month probationary 
period if you are not making an effort to overcome these deficiencies.”  The applicant 
acknowledged being informed of his probation in writing. 
 
 
watch duty that day. 
 

On October 10, 1994, the XO counseled the applicant about failing to report for 

On  his  performance  evaluation  dated  October  31,  1994,  the  applicant  received 
very low marks and was not recommended for advancement to seaman.  The XO coun-
seled him about being frequently late to work, returning from lunch late, having a poor 
demeanor, and showing no effort to qualify as a boat crewman. 
 
 
On November 23, 1994, the applicant submitted a request to be discharged.  He 
stated that he had “had extreme difficulty adjusting to the military style of life”;  was 
“experiencing extreme difficulties in my marriage”; was “undergoing financial difficul-
ties” that could not be resolved on his military income; and had lost interest in the Coast 
Guard. 
 

On  November  25,  1994,  while  on  liberty  and  still  underage,  the  applicant  was 
picked up by military police after consuming “a large amount of prescription medica-
tion and alcohol,” which the MPs reported as a “suicidal gesture.”  The applicant was 
treated at a hospital for an “alcohol-related overdose of Erythromycin.”  The event was 
documented  as  the  applicant’s  first  “alcohol  incident,”  and  he  was  advised  that  any 
further alcohol incident would result in his discharge. 

 
On November 29, 1994, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the 
hospital.    The  psychiatrist  diagnosed  him  with  a  “personality  disorder  not  otherwise 
specified,  [with]  borderline  [and]  dependent  traits”;2  episodic  alcohol  abuse;  and 
                                                                                                                                                             
disorders.    American  Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DIS-
ORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 679.  The Coast Guard relies on the DSM 
when  diagnosing  members  with  mental  conditions.    See  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M6000.1B), Chap. 5.B.1. 

 

2  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.” DSM-IV-TR, p. 
685.    Types  of  personality  disorders  include  paranoid,  schizoid,  schizotypal,  antisocial,  borderline, 

marital problems.  The psychiatrist marked the applicant as having “chronic situational 
maladjustment”  and  “deficiency  in  attitude  and  motivation  for  continued  military 
service.”  He reported that the personality disorder resulted in “significant impairment 
in functioning” and made the applicant “incompatible with continued military service.”  
The  psychiatrist  opined  that  the  personality  disorder  “will  not  respond  to  Command 
efforts  at  rehabilitation  …  nor  to  any  treatment  methods  currently  available  in  any 
military mental health facility.”  He reported that the applicant’s “behavior is part of a 
long-standing,  deeply  ingrained  pattern  of  maladaptive  behavior  that  is  unlikely  to 
change.  He is poorly motivated for continued military service.”  The psychiatrist rec-
ommended  that  the  applicant  be  administratively  discharged  “for  personality  disor-
der.” 
 
 
On December 7, 1994, the applicant’s CO informed the applicant that he had ini-
tiated action to separate him with an honorable discharge due to the applicant’s poor 
performance, habitual tardiness, desire to be discharged, and psychiatric diagnosis.  The 
CO informed the applicant that he had a right to object to the discharge and to submit a 
statement in his own behalf.  The applicant acknowledged the CO’s notification, waived 
his probationary period, waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf, and 
stated that he did not object to being discharged. 
 
 
On  December  8,  1994,  the  applicant’s  CO  recommended  that  the  applicant  be 
discharged  “by  reason  of  unsuitability.”    The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been 
transferred to the unit from Hawaii “because of personal insecurities, low performance 
and suicidal tendencies.”  The CO stated that “[t]hroughout his entire enlistment, there 
has  been  no  indication  whatsoever  in  [the  applicant]  making  progressive  steps  for 
improvement or advancement.”  The CO stated that the applicant had been “receiving 
psychiatric counseling because of marital complications and suicidal tendencies. … His 
condition  is  not  critical  to  the  point  of  being  recommended  for  medical  discharge.  
However, in accordance with the latest evaluation at … [the Army hospital], he is not 
suited for military duty and is recommended to be separated from the service.” 
 
 
The CO also reported that on November 8, 1994, the applicant had been discov-
ered sleeping in the XO’s office while on watch.  The CO stated that the applicant had 
been taken to mast, admonished, and informed that he would be recommended for an 
unsuitability  discharge.    The  CO  forwarded  the  applicant’s  request  for  discharge  and 
stated  that  it  had  not  been  processed  because  of  the  applicant’s  alcohol  incident  and 
hospitalization on November 25, 1994. 

                                                                                                                                                             
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.   
 

 
 
On  December  12,  1994,  the  applicant  underwent  alcohol  screening.    The 
applicant  told  the  screener  that  he  usually  drank  just  “one  beer  a weekend  monthly” 
and  had  “only  been  drunk  four  times  since  31  October  1992.”    Based  on  the  these 
answers, the screener concluded that the applicant “does not appear to have an alcohol 
problem at this time.  He fails to meet any of the [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders-IV] criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence.”  However, the screener 
recommended that the applicant be “screened by medical officer or clinical psychologist 
to rule out dependency.” 
 
 
On December 20, 1994, the Military Personnel Command directed the CO to dis-
charge  the  applicant  within  30  days  by  reason  of  unsuitability  with  a  JFX  separation 
code. 
 

On January 15, 1995, the applicant was honorably discharged for “Unsuitability,” 
pursuant  to  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  with  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code 
and a JFX separation code, which denotes an involuntary separation due to a diagnosed 
personality disorder. 
 
 
charge Review Board that the applicant’s discharge should stand as issued. 
 

On  March  6,  2003,  the  Commandant  approved  a  recommendation  by  the  Dis-

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On January 24, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  requested  relief. 
The  JAG  relied  on  and  adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  of  the  case  provided  in  a 
memorandum from CGPC.   
 

CGPC stated that under the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook, a 
member discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder with a JFX separation code 
may  receive  either  an RE-3G  or  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    CGPC  stated  that  the  appli-
cant’s  “discharge  for unsuitability  and  assignment  of reenlistment  code  RE-4  are  con-
sistent with Coast Guard policy.”  CGPC stated that the RE-4 code “is appropriate given 
his diagnosis and documented performance during his enlistment.”  CGPC noted that 
the applicant did not submit any evidence to show that the diagnosis was inaccurate. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 25, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant did not respond. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Article 12.B.16.b. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 1995 author-
ized enlisted personnel to be discharged by reason of “unsuitability” at the direction of 
the  Commandant  for  inaptitude,  personality  disorders,  apathy,  defective  attitudes, 
inability to expend effort constructively, unsanitary habits, alcohol abuse, financial irre-
sponsibility,  or  homosexuality.    Article  12.B.16.d.  stated  that  members  with  less  than 
eight years of service who were being recommended for discharge by reason of unsuit-
ability were entitled to (a) notice in writing of the specific reason listed under Article 
12.B.16.b. that they were being recommended for discharge, (b) an opportunity to make 
a statement in writing, and (c) an opportunity to consult with counsel if a less than hon-
orable discharge was contemplated. 
 
Article 1.E. of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms states 
 
that a member’s DD 214 should  show a separation authority, SPD code, and reenlist-
ment  code  “as  shown  in  the  SPD  Handbook  or  as  stated  by  the  [Military  Personnel 
Command]  in  the  message  granting  discharge  authority.”    The  narrative  reason  for 
separation on the DD 214 must be whatever is specified by the Military Personnel Com-
mand. 
 
The SPD Handbook states that members involuntarily discharged due to a diag-
 
nosed personality disorder with the separation code JFX should be assigned either an 
RE-4 or RE-3G reenlistment code.  An RE-3G code means that the member would be eli-

gible for reenlistment except for a disqualifying condition that is not a physical disabil-
ity but that interferes with the member’s performance of duty.  Under Article 12.B.5., 
the  choice  of  which  reenlistment  code  to  assign  from  those  allowed  by  the  SPD 
Handbook was to be made by the member’s CO. 
 

 

 

 

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: 
 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

1. 
§ 1552.   
 
2. 

Although the applicant filed his application more than three years after he 
knew or should have known that he was assigned the RE-4 reenlistment code, he filed it 
within  three  years  of  having  timely  filed  an  application  with  the  DRB,  which  has  a 
fifteen-year statute of limitations.  Therefore, the Board finds that the application must 
be considered timely in accordance with the decision in Ortiz v. Sec’y of Defense, 41 F.3d 
738, 743 (D.C.C. 1994). 

 
3. 

The applicant’s military medical records show that he was diagnosed with 
a personality disorder prior to being properly processed for an administrative discharge 
in accordance with Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  The record contains ample 
support  for  the  psychiatrist’s  diagnosis.    The  applicant  was  afforded  his  due  process 
rights and did not object to being discharged.  The Board finds no error or injustice in 
how the Coast Guard processed the applicant for discharge. 

 
4. 

Because  the  applicant  was  being  discharged  with  a  JFX  separation  code, 
his CO had a choice of two reenlistment codes allowed by the SPD Handbook:  RE-4 or 
RE-3G.  The CO assigned the applicant the RE-4 code, which usually prevents someone 
from reenlisting in any military service.  The CO noted in his letter recommending dis-
charge that in addition to the diagnosed personality disorder, the applicant was habitu-
ally late to work, was a poor performer, and showed no motivation to advance.  If the 
CO had chosen an RE-3G code, the applicant might be able to reenlist if a military serv-
ice decided to waive his disqualifying diagnosis. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  has  matured  since  his  discharge  and  now 
deals  with  problems  in  an  adult  manner.    Unfortunately,  the  applicant  submitted  no 
evidence to support his allegations.  The applicant may well have matured in the past 
eleven years, achieved greater stability, and developed the motivation to work hard and 
advance, but he provided no proof of such.  There is no evidence in the record that he is 
now better able to adapt to and advance in the military. 

 
6. 
 

 

 Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan  

 

 

 
  Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton