DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-113 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed the 
case on May 9, 2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military 
record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

The final decision, dated February 15, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD Form 214 so that he is eligible to 
reenlist  in  a  Reserve  component  of  the  armed  forces.    The  applicant  was  honorably 
discharged by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment 
with a JFC1 separation code and an RE-3E2 reenlistment code.    The applicant explained 
his situation in the following manner: 
 

In 1987, I enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Upon arrival they did an x-ray on 
my  left  thumb  where  I  had  surgery  prior  to  going  to  boot  camp.    The 

                                                 
1      A  JFC  separation  code  means  that  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged  due  to  an  erroneous 
enlistment.   
 
2   An RE-3E reenlistment code means that the applicant is eligible for enlistment except for disqualifying 
factor:  erroneous enlistment. 
 

doctor at Cape May noticed that my thumb had not healed completely; so 
they "red tagged" me and discharged me.  I was discharged for medical 
reasons.  They told me once [the thumb] had healed I could return.  The 
Coast Guard told me that they would make it like I wasn't even there yet.     

 

 
 

 

SUMMARY OF RECORD 

On  April  20,  1987,  the  applicant  began  a  four-year  period  of  active  duty.    He 
underwent a pre-enlistment medical examination in January 1987 and was determined 
to be qualified for enlistment.  Apparently in February 1987, the applicant had surgery 
on his left thumb for torn ligaments and muscle damage to the thumb.   

 
On April 22, 1987, after reporting to recruit training, the applicant underwent a 
pre-training medical examination in which he informed medical personnel that he had 
had  surgery  on  his  left  thumb.    A  more  thorough  examination  of  the  thumb  was 
performed and the medical narrative summary reported the following:   

 
Medical  examination disclosed  some  increased  exostosis  of  the  proximal 
interphalangeal  joint  of  the  thumb,  and  it  was  noted  that  return  of 
function of the thumb appeared to be proceeding satisfactorily.  However, 
since it had been only less than 2 months since surgery, and the evaluee 
was about to enter a very strenuous physical training program, it was felt 
he was not quite ready to undergo this training.  The evaluee's motivation 
appeared to be excellent and in the opinion of the Red Tag Review Board, 
he was a desirable candidate.  He was referred to the Medical Board for an 
evaluation.   
 
On  April  23,  1987,  a  medical  board  convened  and  expressed  the  following 

opinions and recommendations: 

 
1.  The evaluee does not meet the minimum standard for enlistment in the 
U.S.  Coast  Guard  as  prescribed  in  Section  3-C-14n  of  [the  Medical 
Manual], i.e., injury within the preceding 6 weeks.  This condition existed 
prior to enlistment.   

 

2.  The disqualifying condition was not aggravated by, and has not caused 
a physical disability due to a period of active military service. 

 

3.    Disclosure  to  the  evaluee  of  information  relative  to  his  physical 
condition  would  not  adversely  affect  the  evaluee's  physical  or  mental 
health. 
 

4.  It is recommended that the evaluee be separated from the U.S. Coast 
Guard in accordance with Article 12-B-12 of [the Personnel Manual]. 

 

5.  It is recommended that the evaluee be given favorable consideration for 
reenlistment in approximately 60 days or 2 months.  It is the opinion of the 
[medical] board that it would require this length of time for the evaluee to 
be ready to undergo the rigors of recruit training.   
 
 
On  April  24,  1987,  the  applicant  was  informed  of  the  MB  findings  that  he  was 
unfit for duty due to a preexisting recent trauma to his thumb.  The sentence "that these 
diagnoses (listed above) will be considered by the CPEB for its independent evaluation" 
was lined out on the Patient's Statement Regarding the Findings of the Medical Board.   
The  applicant  chose  not  to  submit  a  statement  in  rebuttal  to  the  medical  board.    He 
acknowledged  the  above  with  his  signature  on  April  24,  1987.    The  applicant  was 
discharged on April 29, 1987.   

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  27,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.    The  JAG  adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  Commander,  Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  as  the  Coast  Guard's  advisory  opinion.      CGPC 
made the following conclusions: 

 
1.    The  applicant's  request  is  not  timely  and  the  applicant  has  failed  to 
substantiate any justification for the delay in presenting this case and [it] 
should  be  denied  due  to  its  untimeliness.    Additionally,  there  is  no 
evidence that the applicant exhausted administrative review through the 
Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB).  The  following  opinion/conclusion  has 
been provided in the event the Board for Correction of Military Records 
chooses to consider this case.   

 

2.    I  find  that  the  applicant's  discharge  was  in  accordance  with  Coast 
Guard  policy    .  .  .  for  processing  personnel  for  convenience  of  the 
government.  The applicant enlisted and reported to recruit training and 
was determined not physically qualified for enlistment due to surgery that 
was  not  completely  healed    .  .  .  The  narrative  reason,  [separation  code] 
and  reenlistment  code  are  appropriate  as  prescribed  in  [the  Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) Handbook]. 

 

3.  The applicant's contention that the narrative reason for separation, SPD 
and  reenlistment  codes  are  a  bar  to  enlistment/reenlistment  is  not  fully 
founded.  Reenlistment code RE-3 indicates the individual is "eligible for 

reenlistment  except  for  disqualifying  factor"  .  .  .      In  this  case  the  RE-3 
requires  that the  applicant  substantiate  that the  previously  disqualifying 
condition  has  sufficiently  resolved  to  allow  enlistment.    Assignment  of 
any  other  reenlistment  code  would  not  be  consistent  with  the  nature  of 
applicant's discharge.  Service policies vary, and RE-3E personnel may be 
eligible for accession with a waiver by the gaining Service.   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 
On  September  28,  2006,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  was  sent  to  the 
applicant  so  that  he  could  submit  a  response  to  them.    The  Board  did  not  receive  a 
response from the applicant.   
 

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 section 1552 of 

title 10 of the United States Code.3   

 
 
2.  The application was not timely. To be timely, an application 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.      This 
application  was  submitted  approximately  nineteen  years  beyond  the  statute  of 
limitations.   
 

                                                 
3  The Board notes the Coast Guard's argument that it could deny the applicant's request solely because 
he  failed  to  exhaust  his  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB) 
within the fifteen years allotted for him to do so.    Section 5213(b) of the CFR states, "no application shall 
be  considered  by  the  Board  until  the  applicant  has  exhausted  all  effective  administrative  remedies 
afforded  under  existing  law  or  regulations,  and  such  legal  remedies  as  the  Board  may  determine  are 
practical, appropriate, and available to the applicant."  This provision is intended to require an applicant 
to seek relief through other avenues that are available at the time of filing an application with the Board.  
The fifteen-year window for applying to the DRB had closed at the time the applicant filed his application 
with the BCMR and therefore was not an available remedy.  The Coast Guard has presented no law or 
regulation and the Board is aware of none that permits the denial of an application based solely on the 
ground that an applicant failed to avail himself of a past remedy that no longer exists at the time of filing 
his or her BCMR application.   Section 1552 of title 10 of the United States Codes empowers the Secretary 
to  correct  any  military  Coast  Guard  record  to  remove  an  error  or  injustice.  Therefore,  the  Board  is  not 
persuaded by the Coast Guard's suggestion that this applicant's case should be denied because he failed 
to apply to the DRB during the fifteen years allotted for doing so.  It is one factor, however, that the Board 
may consider in deciding the merits of an application. 

3.   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). 

 
4.  The applicant claimed that he did not discover the alleged error until June 1, 
2005. However, he should have discovered the alleged error upon his discharge from 
the  Coast  Guard  in  1987.    He  signed  the  DD  Form  214  that  contains  the  reason  for 
discharge, the SPD code, and the reenlistment code. He argued that the Board should 
waive the three-year statute of limitations because he wants to serve in the Reserve and 
the DD Form 214 is preventing him from doing so.  The applicant's reason for not filing 
his application sooner is not persuasive to the Board. Accordingly, the Board finds that 
the applicant has presented insufficient evidence to support a waiver of the three-year 
statute of limitations.  
 
 
5.    Nor  is  the  Board  persuaded  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  based  on  a 
cursory review of the merits.  In this regard, the Board finds that the applicant is not 
likely to prevail on his claim.  The applicant's thumb was identified as a disqualifying 
condition  during  his pre-training  medical  examination.  Under  Article  3-C-14(b)(14)  of 
the  Medical  Manual  then  in  effect,  an  injury  of  a  bone  or  joint  without  fracture  or 
dislocation  within  the  preceding  six  weeks  prior  to  enlistment  was  disqualifying  for 
enlistment.4  The applicant's problem with his thumb was quite serious since it required 
surgery to repair torn ligaments and muscle damage.   In the opinion of Coast Guard 
medical personnel the applicant did not meet the medical qualifications for enlistment 
and  recommended  his  discharge  as  being  in  the  best  interest  of  the  Service  and  the 
applicant  so  that  the  thumb  could  heal  completely.    Article  12-B-12  of  the  Personnel 
Manual authorizes the discharge of recruits undergoing training who have fewer than 
60 days of active duty and who have a physical disability that existed prior to entry into 
the Coast Guard.  The applicant had been on active duty for only ten days at the time of 
his  discharge.    The  applicant  has  offered  nothing  to  prove  that  the  Coast  Guard's 
diagnosis  was  erroneous  or  that  his  discharge  was  improper.    Nor  has  he  shown  the 
reenlistment  or  separation  code  to  be  erroneous.    Each  code  accurately  describes  the 
reason  for  the  applicant's  discharge  as  required  by  COMDTINST  M1900.4B 
(Instructions  for  the  Preparation  and  Distribution  of  the  Certificate  of  Release  or 
Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214).     
 

                                                 
4   Although no exact date in February is given for the surgery, the applicant offered no objections at the 
time of discharge or denied that it occurred within six weeks of his enlistment. 

 
6.  The applicant argued that his reenlistment code should be changed because 
the Coast Guard personnel told him that once his thumb healed he could return to the 
Coast Guard, and he now wants to join a branch of the Reserve.  However, the applicant 
has  presented  no  evidence  that  his  thumb  has  healed  or  that  it  has  healed  without 
residual damage; nor has he presented any evidence that he has been denied enlistment 
in the Coast Guard Reserve or any other of the Reserve components.  Except for his own 
statement,  the  applicant  has  presented  the  Board  no  reasonable  basis  on  which  to 
consider changing the RE-3E reenlistment code.  
 
 
7.  The Board notes that an RE-3 code is not a bar to reenlistment, but means that 
a waiver must be obtained to reenlist the applicant.  Again, the applicant has presented 
no  evidence  that  he  has  asked  any  recruiting  personnel  to  request  a  waiver  on  his 
behalf.   
  

8.  Accordingly due to the passage of time, the lack of a good cause explanation 
for not complying with the statute of limitations, and a 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 in this case and it should be denied. 

 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for cor-

rection of his military record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 Richard Walter