DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-005 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
xxxxxxxxxx, EM2 (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  October  3,  2005,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s 
completed application and military records. 
 
 
This  final  decision,  dated  June  29,  2006,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the 
three duly appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this 
case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant, a former electrician’s mate second class (EM2) in the Coast 
 
Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record by upgrading the character 
of  service  (general)  on  his  discharge  form  (DD  214)  to  “honorable”  so  he  can 
apply for education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.  He was discharged 
on June 6, 2003, and his DD 214 indicates that he received a general discharge, an 
RE-4  reenlistment  code  (ineligible  for  reenlistment),  a  JFX  separation  code 
(unsuitable  for  service  due  to  a  personality  disorder1),  and  “Personality 
                                                 
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 

Disorder”  as  the  narrative  reason  for  separation,  in  accordance  with  Article 
12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. 
 
The applicant alleged that he was improperly discharged for a personality 
 
disorder because he was subject to unnecessary scrutiny and “lack of compassion 
by naval doctors and others in command.  I was not given a fair shake regarding 
my mental condition and was therefore not given the appropriate treatment, thus 
leading  to  the  misdiagnosis,  misunderstandings,  and  the  like.”    He  added  that 
“two  years  have  elapsed  since  my  career  ended  with  the  service,  and  during 
these  months  I  have  had  plenty  of  time  to  go  back  and  examine  what  went 
wrong, and how things could have been rectified in a more positive way, as you 
probably have heard the cliché hindsight is always 20/20.”  
 
 
following:  
 

In  support  of  his  request  for  correction,  the  applicant  also  provided  the 

Over  these  last  two  years  I  have  many  times wished I  could  simply  re-
enter  the  Coast  Guard  and  start  over.    I  do  miss  the  good  parts  of  the 
service  and  remember  how  proud  it  felt  to  wear  the  uniform.    I  do 
honestly feel that I am in better mental health at this present day than I 
was  two  years  ago,  and  feel  like  I  could  deal  with  those  stressful 
situations  differently  and  with  more  tact  and  self  discipline  than  what 
was displayed in 2003.  Some things in life are learned as one gets older, 
some would call it maturity . . . And I am being honest and sincere when I 
say I DO have remorse for the inappropriate acts that I committed, I DO 
have  accountability,  and  I  AM  NOT  narcissistic.    If  I  was  offered  the 
opportunity of re-entry in the Coast Guard today, I would prove it. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On August 22, 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term 
of  four  years.    Between  2001  and  May  2003,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  a 
number of unpleasant incidents and  was  disciplined on several occasions for a 
variety of offenses born of those incidents.  The problems he experienced while 
in the Coast Guard were summarized by his commanding officer (CO) in a May 
23, 2003, letter to the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) requesting the 
applicant’s discharge: 

                                                                                                                                                 
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. 
 

 
In 2001, [the applicant] was involved in a civilian accident, a hit and run 
traffic accident & was cited for his leaving the scene of an accident.  In the 
fall of 2002, [the applicant] lost his temper and threw a water bottle at a 
fellow crewmember then left the NESU [naval engineering support unit] 
without authorization — member received a verbal reprimand and was 
directed to [attend] anger management training.  In February 2003, [the 
applicant]  struck  another  petty  officer  (fellow  team  player)  with his  fist 
during a basketball game.  [The applicant] was awarded NJP [non judicial 
punishment]  at  “CAPT’s  Mast”  —  fined,  14  days  extra  duty,  and  a 
suspended  reduction  in  rate.    He  was  also  directed  back  to  anger 
management  training.    On  14  May  the  applicant  verbally  assaulted  the 
ISC  ESO  [Integrated  Support  Command  education  service  officer]  (she 
felt her personal safety was threatened for not returning his phone call).  
He damaged (kicked & threw) a trash can outside the bldg., bent a road 
sign  en  route  to  the  NESU  building  and  put  his  fist  through  the 
windshield of the Cushman vehicle.  He then walked outside the repair 
bay and threatened suicide and threatened to fight anyone that wanted to 
stop him.  He was calmed down, ushered over to the clinic for treatment 
of his hand and the NESU and medical clinic command sent him over to 
Ports Naval Hospital for a mental health evaluation.  [The applicant] was 
placed on report and the investigation (dated 21 May) has been returned 
to me (CO NESU) for disposition.  

 

On  April  7,  2003,  a  psychiatrist  with  the  Naval  Medical  Center 
Portsmouth conducted an outpatient psychiatric evaluation of the applicant after 
his  primary  physician  prescribed  an  antidepressant  drug  and  recommended  a 
psychiatric  evaluation  for  “a  more  experienced  opinion.”    At  the  conclusion  of 
the  evaluation,  the  psychiatrist  diagnosed  the  applicant  with  a  depressive 
disorder, personality disorder, and moderate dissatisfaction with his job and the 
military.  

 
For the evaluation period ending April 30, 2003, the applicant’s Enlisted 
Performance Form indicates that he received marks of 3 (below standard)(on a 
scale  of  1  to  7)  for  communicating,  directing  others,  working  with  others, 
developing  subordinates,  work-life  sensitivity,  setting  an  example,  military 
bearing, integrity, loyalty, respecting others, and human relations.  His received 
a mark of 2 (poor) for customs and courtesies and an “unsatisfactory” mark for 
conduct.  He was not recommended for advancement. 
 

On May 19, 2003, following the incident involving the applicant and the 
ISC ESO, his CO notified him that he was being referred for a command-directed 
mental health evaluation.  The CO noted that before making this referral, he had 
consulted  with  the  applicant’s  health-care  providers  at  the  medical  clinic  and 
that they agreed the referral was in the applicant’s best interest.  In making the 

referral,  the  CO  cited the  applicant’s  September  2002  incident  in  which  he  [the 
applicant]  threw  a  plastic  water  bottle  at  another  member,  the  fight  at  the 
basketball game, and the May 2003 violent outburst with the ESO.  The applicant 
signed the mental health referral form, thereby acknowledging that he read and 
received a copy of the document.   

 
The applicant was evaluated on May 19, 2003, by a staff psychologist with 
the U.S. Navy, who noted that the applicant had previously been diagnosed with 
an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and partner relationship problems.  
She  also  noted  in  her  report  that  the  applicant  “had  prepared  documentation 
showing  that  he  had  done  homework  to  learn  about  getting  an  administrative 
separation.”  The psychologist stated that the applicant “has decided that he is 
unsuitable for a career in the Coast Guard.  I concur with that view based on his 
poor judgment, poor temper control, and mood instability.” 

 
On  May  22,  2003,  the  same  Navy  psychiatrist  who  conducted  the 
evaluation on April 7, 2003, conducted a command-directed mental health exam 
of  the  applicant.    She  diagnosed  him  with  a  depressive  disorder  and  a 
personality disorder with antisocial, narcissistic and borderline traits.  She stated 
that she was initiating a recommendation that the applicant be discharged from 
the  Coast  Guard  for  unsuitability  “due  to  the  presence  of  a  severe  personality 
disorder” and that “the member manifests a longstanding disorder of character 
and behavior which is so severe that the member’s ability to function effectively 
in  the  naval  environment  is  significantly  impaired  and  interferes  with  the 
member’s performance of duty.”      
 
 
Also  on  May  22,  2003,  the  applicant’s  CO  formally  notified  him  that  he 
was  initiating  his  discharge  under  Article  12.B.16.b.2.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Per-
sonnel  Manual  because  his  diagnosed  personality  disorder  “requires  that  I 
request  your  discharge  due  to  unsuitability.”    The  CO  stated  that  he  was 
recommending a general discharge under honorable conditions, but that the final 
decision would rest with CGPC.  The CO cited the following as justification for 
the recommended discharge: 
 

You  have  had  repeated  outbursts  of  anger  that  have  affected  the  good 
order and discipline of this command.  Over the past two years you have 
been  involved  in  (a)  a  traffic  accident  and  did  not  properly  pass 
information with the other driver or report the incident to the police, and 
(b)  you  assaulted  other  persons  on  three  occasions.    Specifically,  in 
September  2002  you  threw  an  object  (water  bottle)  at  a  fellow 
crewmember  and  departed 
this  command  without  authorization 
(reprimanded),  in  February  2003  you  initiated  an  altercation  during  a 
basketball game (Mast proceedings and non-judicial punishment), and in 
May  2003  you  verbally  assaulted  multiple  persons,  damaged  multiple 

pieces of government property, and threatened violence upon a number 
of crewmembers (Mast proceedings are pending). 

 
In  addition,  the  CO  noted  that  the  applicant  admitted  to  having 
 
misrepresented  his  medical  history  while  being  processed  for  initial  enlistment 
and  purposely  left  out  pertinent  information  concerning  his  mental  health 
history.   
 

The  CO  also  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was  entitled  to  submit  a 
statement on his own behalf.  The record contains an endorsement signed by the 
applicant  dated  May  22,  2003,  on  which  the  applicant  acknowledged  the  CO’s 
notification of proposed discharge, waived his right to submit a statement, and 
waived his right to consult with an attorney.  He also indicated that he did not 
object to being discharged from the Coast Guard.  
   
 
On  May  23,  2003,  the  CO  recommended  to  CGPC  that  the  applicant  be 
discharged  for  unsuitability,  based  on  his  “violent  displays  and  strong 
psychological  evaluation  recommending  expedited  discharge.”    The  CO  noted 
that  the  applicant  “has  been  exceptionally  disruptive  to  this  unit  and  the  ISC 
Portsmouth  campus  resulting  in  property  damage,  lost  workdays  for  a  civilian 
employee, and concerns for personal safety.”  The CO asserted that the applicant 
is “potentially dangerous to members of this command and others” and that he 
had  been  diagnosed  with  a  depressive  disorder,  personality  disorder,  and 
antisocial, narcissistic and borderline traits.  
 

On May 29, 2003, CGPC authorized the CO to discharge the applicant, in 
accordance  with  Article  12.B.16.,  no  later  than  June  26,  2003,  with  a  general 
discharge by reason of unsuitability.  

 
On  June  6,  2003,  the  applicant  received  a  discharge  characterized  as 
“general” with an RE-4 reenlistment code, a JFX separation code, and a narrative 
reason for separation of “personality disorder.”   
 
 
Prior  to  filing  his  application  with  the  Board,  the  applicant  submitted  a 
request to the Coast Guard’s Discharge Review Board (DRB) for the same relief 
requested from the BCMR.  On February 11, 2004, the DRB denied the applicant's 
request, stating that his discharge had been carried out in accordance with Coast 
Guard policy.  On June 16, 2004, the Commandant reviewed the DRB’s decision 
and approved its finding that the characterization of the applicant’s service was 
proper. 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  February  13,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast 
Guard  submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant 
partial relief.  
 
 
The JAG relied on a memorandum from CGPC concerning the applicant’s 
request.  CGPC noted that the applicant’s record reveals numerous instances of 
inappropriate  conduct  and  that  the  violent  nature  of  his  offenses  and  his  poor 
behavior substantiate the “general” character of service.  CGPC also stated that 
the  applicant  did  not  provide  any  evidence  that  “his  medical  diagnosis  or 
performance  during  his  period  of  service  were  inaccurate  or  supersede  his 
diagnosis.”  Moreover, CGPC noted that although the applicant alleged that he 
was improperly treated for his mental health condition, the record is replete with 
records  indicating  that  the  applicant  received  counseling  and/or  medical 
assistance from the Coast Guard.  Finally, CGPC stated that the applicant did not 
object to his discharge nor did he elect to make a statement or seek the advice of 
counsel. 
 

Although CGPC recommended denying the relief sought by the applicant, 
it  did  recommend  that  the  Board  correct  a  technical  discrepancy  on  the 
applicant’s DD 214.  CGPC stated that item 24 of the applicant’s DD 214 should 
indicate the character of service and not the type of discharge.  Accordingly, it 
recommended that the Board correct the character of service on the applicant’s 
DD 214 from “general” to “under honorable conditions.” 

 
 
 
 
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On February 15, 2006, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
 
the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The BCMR did not 
receive a response. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  the 
Commander  may  authorize  or  direct  the  separation  of  enlisted  members  for  a 
number of reasons, including diagnosed personality disorders.  

 
Article 12.B.16.e. of the Personnel Manual provides that when discharging 
a member for a personality disorder, a general discharge is warranted if there is 
evidence  of  misbehavior,  bad  faith,  or  failure  to  make  a  proportionate  effort 
having due regard for his or her rate and capabilities.  

 
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.    Chapter  3.F.16.c  provides  that  personality  disorders  “may 
render an individual administratively unfit [for duty] rather than unfit because 
of a physical impairment.  Interference with performance of effective duty will be 
dealt with through appropriate administrative channels (see Section 5-B).” 
 

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.  The application was timely.   

2. 

The Board notes that  the applicant is not contesting his discharge 
from  the  Coast  Guard;  he  is  only  seeking  a  change  in  the  character  of  service 
listed  on  his  DD  214  so  he  can  apply  for  education  benefits  under  the 
Montgomery  GI  Bill.    The  record  in  this  case  indicates  that  the  applicant  was 
involved in several unpleasant incidents in which he failed to exercise emotional 
restraint  and  good  judgment.    The  applicant’s  mental  health  was  evaluated  on 
several occasions by his physician and a psychologist, both of whom determined 
that he suffered from a personality disorder.  After experiencing two years of the 
applicant’s  volatile  temper  during  which  the  applicant  verbally  and  physically 
assaulted  several  crewmembers  and  a  civilian,  his  CO  initiated  a  command- 
directed  mental  health  referral  to  determine  the  applicant’s  mental  fitness  for 
continued service in the Coast Guard. 

 
3. 

In response to the command-directed mental health evaluation, the 
applicant was evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist who had previously diagnosed 
him  with  a  personality  disorder.    Following  the  command-directed  evaluation, 
she  determined  that  he  continued  to  have  significant  behavioral  problems  and 
that his personality disorder was severe enough to warrant discharge from the 
Coast Guard.  She noted that the applicant “manifests a longstanding disorder of 
character and behavior which is so severe that the member’s ability to function 
effectively in the naval environment is significantly impaired and interferes with 
the member’s performance of duty.”   

 
4. 

The  applicant’s  CO  notified  him  that  he  was  recommending  his 
discharge  from  the Coast  Guard,  and  the  applicant  waived  his  right  to  consult 
with  an  attorney  and  to  submit  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf.    He  was 
subsequently discharged for unsuitability pursuant to Article 12.B.16. of the Per-

sonnel  Manual  and  Chapter  5  of  the  Medical  Manual.  The  RE-4  reenlistment 
code,  JFX  separation  code,  and  narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “personality 
disorder” shown on the applicant’s DD 214 are fully supported by the applicant’s 
diagnosis and history of misconduct.  His general discharge was also correct in 
light  of  his  numerous  acts  of  violence.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant 
received all due process.  He has not proved that the Coast Guard committed any 
error or injustice in awarding him a general discharge due to unsuitability.   
 

5. 

The  JAG  and  CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board  correct  a 
technical discrepancy in the applicant’s record.  CGPC noted that the applicant’s 
character  of  service  as  shown  on  his  DD  214  should  be  corrected  to  “under 
honorable conditions” instead of “general.”  The Board agrees.  

 
6. 

In  light  of  the  applicant’s  record  and  the  JAG’s  recommendation, 
the applicant’s request should be denied.  However, the Board should order the 
Coast Guard to make the technical correction described in Finding 5. 

 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of former EM2 XXXXXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for 
correction  of  his  military  record  is  denied,  except  that  the  Coast  Guard  shall 
make the following correction to his DD 214:  

 
Block  24  of  his  DD  214  shall  be  corrected  to  show  “under  honorable 
conditions” as the character of service. 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
   

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

________________________________ 
 David Morgan Frost 

_______________________________ 
 James E. McLeod 

 

_______________________________ 
 Darren S. Wall