DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-005 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 the case on October 16, 
2006, upon receipt of the application and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  13,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 
 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, whose DD 214 reflects an “uncharacterized” discharge due to “entry level 
performance and conduct,” was discharged from boot camp on September 28, 2001.  She asked 
the Board to correct her DD 214 to show that she received an honorable discharge because she 
was separated as a result of a medical problem and not because of any misconduct.  The appli-
cant alleged that she discovered the error on July 12, 2006, when she began trying to get medical 
benefits for pain in her legs. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On August 7, 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Within a week of begin-
ning boot camp, she sought help for pain in her ankles, knees, and hips.  She reported that she 
had suffered some knee pain in high school.  Her ankles were found to be swollen and tender. 

 
On August 20, 2001, a radiologist reported that x-rays taken on August 16, 2001, showed 
that the applicant had no fractures, dislocations, bone or joint abnormalities, foreign bodies, or 
soft tissue calcification.  The applicant was diagnosed with “overuse syndrome” and prescribed 
physical therapy and anti-inflammatory agents.  However, the pain in her ankles, knees, and hips 
continued without much improvement.   

Another medical record indicates that the applicant was motivated to succeed but felt that 
she was being accused of malingering by her superiors at the training center.  She admitted that 
she had previously suffered knee pain during her physical education classes in high school. 

 
On September 19, 2001, the applicant was evaluated by a doctor for a Medical Board and 
found “not [to] meet the minimum standards for enlistment and retention” and to be “unqualified 
for continued service” as a result of “overuse syndrome of both lower extremities” pursuant to 
Chapter 3.D.10.d.(1) of the Medical Manual.  She was informed of the determination and indi-
cated that she would not seek a waiver of her condition.  She also agreed with a statement that 
she was not suffering from any injury or illness.  The doctor found her “fit for discharge with no 
limitations” and recommended that she be processed for discharge.  He noted that if she under-
went six months of rehabilitation and fitness training, she could reapply for enlistment. 

 
On September 28, 2001, the applicant received an uncharacterized discharge under Arti-
cle 12.B.20. of the Personnel Manual with “entry level performance and conduct” as her narra-
tive reason for discharge, an RE-3L reenlistment code, and a JGA separation code, which denotes 
an involuntary discharge “when member has inability, lack of effort, failure to adapt to military 
or minor disciplinary infractions during the first 180 days of active military service. 
 

   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

CGPC noted that the application was untimely and that the applicant did not apply to the 

 
 
On  February  28,  2007,  the  Judge Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant partial relief in this case.  He 
adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum by the Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC).   
 
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) before applying to the BCMR. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  properly  awarded  an  uncharacterized  discharge 
because  she  was  only  in  the  Service  for  53  days,  so  any  other  character  of  service  would  be 
unjustified.    CGPC  cited  a  provision  in  the  current  Personnel  Manual  in  making  this  claim.  
CGPC stated, however, that block 28 on the applicant’s DD 214 was not completed in accor-
dance with COMDTINST M1900.4D, the instruction manual for completing DD 214s.  CGPC 
stated that block 28 should state “Entry Level Separation,” rather than “Entry Level Performance 
and Conduct.”  CGPC argued that no other relief is warranted under the regulations. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  March  1,  2007,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory 

 
 
opinion and invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Chapter  3.D.10.d.1.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  provides  that  “chronic  pain 
(719.4) of one or both lower extremities that … would interfere with walking, running, weight 

bearing, or the satisfactory completion of training or military duty” is a disqualifying condition 
for enlistment.  
 
 
Article 12.B.20.a.1. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2001 authorizes “uncharacter-
ized” discharges for members with fewer than  180 days of  active service who “[d]emonstrate 
poor  proficiency,  conduct,  aptitude  or  unsuitability  for  further  service  during  the  period  from 
enlistment  through  recruit  training.”   Article  12.B.20.a.2.  states  that  an  “uncharacterized  dis-
charge is used for most recruit separations, except for disability … or in cases when another type 
of discharge may be appropriate.”  (On March 5, 2002, after the applicant’s discharge, Article 
12.B.20.a.1. was amended when Change 35 was incorporated in the Personnel Manual by adding 
subparagraph c, which provides that uncharacterized discharges are also authorized for members 
who “[e]xhibit minor pre-existing medical issues not of a disabling nature which do not meet the 
medical/physical procurement standards in place for entry into the Service.”) 
 

Article 12.B.12.a.5.c. authorized discharges for the convenience of the Government when 
a “member undergoing recruit training in an original  enlistment who has fewer than 60 days’ 
active service has a physical disability not incurred in or aggravated by a period of active mili-
tary service; i.e., the defect existed before the member entered the Service.” 

 
Article 12.B.12.a.12. authorized discharges for the convenience of the Government when 
a member has a “condition that, though not a physical disability, interferes with performance of 
duty; e.g., enuresis or somnambulism.” 

 
 
Article 12.B.12.c. stated that a “member being discharged for the Government’s conven-
ience shall be  given an  honorable or  general discharge, as appropriate, under Article 12.B.2.”  
Article 12.B.2.f.1.f.(3) provides that a member is not ineligible for an honorable discharge sim-
ply because the member is discharged during recruit training and so has received no performance 
evaluation. 
 
 
following codes, narrative reasons, and reenlistment codes: 
 
SPD Code 

The Separation Program Designator Handbook in effect in 2001 authorized the use of the 

Narrative Reason 

RE Code  Authority 
RE-3L 
12-B-20 

Entry Level 
Performance and 
Conduct 

JGA 
(as on 

applicant’s 
DD 214) 

JFW 

Failed Medical/Physical 
Procurement Standards 

Condition, Not a 
Disability 

RE-3G 
RE-3X 
RE-4 
RE-3G 
RE-3X 
RE-4 

12-B-12 

12-B-12 

Disability, Existed Prior 
to Service, Medical 
Board 
Erroneous Entry (Other) 

RE-3P 

12-B-15 

RE-3E 
RE-4 

12-B-12 

JFV 

JFN 

JFC 

 

Explanation 
Involuntary discharge … when member has 
inability, lack of effort, failure to adapt to military 
or minor disciplinary infractions during first 180 
days of active military service. 
Involuntary discharge … when member fails to 
meet established medical and/or physical 
procurement standards. 
Involuntary discharge … when a condition, not 
a physical disability, … interferes with the 
performance of duty (Enuresis, motion 
sickness, allergy, obesity, fear of flying, et al.) 
Involuntary discharge … for physical disability 
which existed prior to entry on active duty and 
was established by a medical board. 
Involuntary discharge … when individual 
erroneously enlisted … (not related to alcohol or 
drug abuse). 

Under Chapter 2 of COMDTINST M1900.4D, the instruction for completing DD 214s, 

 
 
•  RE-3E denotes that the veteran is eligible to reenlist but was discharged due to an “erroneous 
enlistment”;   
•  RE-3G denotes that the veteran is eligible to reenlist except for a disqualifying factor, which 
is a “condition (not a disability)”;  
•  RE-3L denotes an “entry level separation, must have waiver to reenlist”;  
•  RE-3P denotes that the veteran is eligible to reenlist except for a physical disability; 
•  RE-3X denotes that the veteran is eligible to reenlist except for the fact that he or she is a 
nonswimmer or has motion sickness; and  
•  RE-4 denotes that the veteran is not eligible to reenlist. 
 

OTHER BCMR CASES 

 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 2006-113, the applicant enlisted two months after having had torn 
ligaments  in  his  thumb  surgically  repaired.   Two  days  after  he  reported  for  recruit  training,  a 
physical examination of his thumb revealed that it had not yet healed completely.  On the appli-
cant’s  third  day  in  the  Coast  Guard,  a  Medical  Board  reported  that  he  had  a  pre-existing 
disqualifying condition and did not meet the minimum standard for enlistment under the Medical 
Manual.  The Medical Board recommended that the applicant be separated under Article 12-B-12 
of the Personnel Manual but be given favorable consideration for reenlistment after sixty days.  
The  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  for  “erroneous  entry  (other)”  ten  days  after  he 
enlisted.  His DD 214 reflected a JFC separation code, an RE-3E reenlistment code, and Article 
12-B-12 as the separation authority.  The applicant asked for an RE-1 reenlistment code but the 
Board found that the RE-3E was correct because the applicant had not been physically eligible 
for reenlistment on the day of his discharge and had not proved to the Board that his thumb was 
completely healed. 
 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 2007-040, the applicant received an honorable discharge 51 days 
after beginning boot camp because of a diagnosed “lumbar syndrome” that pre-existed his enlist-
ment.  His DD 214 showed a JFC separation code, “enlisted in error” as the narrative reason for 
separation, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and Article 12-B-12 as the narrative reason for separation.  
The Coast Guard recommended that his reenlistment code be corrected to RE-3E and that the 
narrative  reason  for  separation  be  corrected  to  “erroneous  entry”  as  provided  under  the  SPD 
Handbook.  This case has not yet been decided by the Board. 
 

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 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  
CGPC pointed out that the applicant has not filed an application with the DRB.  However, the 
DRB does not handle matters that may involve monetary benefits and so does not docket cases 
involving  medical  or  disability  allegations.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has 
exhausted her effective administrative remedies in this case as required under 33 C.F.R. § 52.13. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in her record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). The applicant was discharged in 
September 2001 and knew or should have known that she had received an “uncharacterized,” 
nonmedical discharge at that time.  Therefore, her application was untimely. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of an applica-
tion if 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 to determine 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 instructed 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).   

Although the applicant’s reason for not filing her application within three years is 
not compelling, a cursory review of her record shows that the applicant was discharged for a pre-
existing medical condition but her DD 214 reflects a discharge for poor performance and conduct 
during recruit training.  In light of the obvious and prejudicial errors on the applicant’s DD 214, 
the Board will waive the statute of limitations. 

The record shows that the applicant’s lower extremities were not strong enough 
for her to participate in boot camp.  The training center’s doctor diagnosed her with “overuse 
syndrome,” recommended her discharge, and told her that she could reapply if she underwent six 
months of fitness training.  The applicant agreed with his assessment that she was not suffering 
from an injury or illness.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant was discharged due to a 
pre-existing medical condition that was not a disability.  The JGA separation code and narrative 
reason for separation on her DD 214 are clearly erroneous and unfair since they indicate that her 
performance and conduct during boot camp were unacceptable, which was not the case. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

The Coast Guard recommended that the Board change only the applicant’s narra-
tive reason for separation from “Entry Level Performance and Conduct” to “Entry Level Separa-
tion.”  This recommended correction, however, would leave the applicant with a JGA separation 
code, which also denotes poor performance and conduct, and with a narrative reason for separa-
tion  that  was  not  listed  in  the  SPD  Handbook  in  2001.    In  making  this  recommendation,  the 
Coast Guard cited Article 12.B.20.a.1.c. of the Personnel Manual, which was not yet in effect 
when the applicant was discharged in September 2001. 

The Coast Guard argued that the applicant was properly awarded an uncharacter-
ized discharge because she was only in the Service for 53 days, and so any other character of 
service  would  be  unjustified.   Article  12.B.20.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2001, 
however, stated that uncharacterized discharges are for new members who “[d]emonstrate poor 
proficiency, conduct, aptitude or unsuitability for further service during the period from enlist-
ment through recruit training.”  Article 12.B.20. was not amended to authorize uncharacterized 
discharges for members, like the applicant, who “[e]xhibit minor pre-existing medical issues not 
of a disabling nature which do not meet the medical/physical procurement standards in place for 

entry  into  the  Service”  until  March  5,  2002,  more  than  five  months  after  the  applicant’s  dis-
charge on September 28, 2001. 

Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2001,  on  the  other  hand, 
expressly authorized discharges for recruits who had medical conditions that prevented their per-
formance  of  training  and  active  service,  and  recruits  discharged  under  Article  12.B.12.  were 
eligible  for  honorable  discharges.    The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  in  BCMR  Docket  No. 
2006-113 received an honorable discharge for “erroneous entry (other)” with a JFC separation 
code because of incompletely healed thumb ligaments after just ten days in boot camp.  Simi-
larly, the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 2007-040 received an honorable discharge for errone-
ous entry with a JFC separation code just 51 days after he enlisted because of a pre-existing back 
problem.    Therefore,  it  appears  that  before  Change  35  to  the  Personnel  Manual  on  March  5, 
2002,  members  who,  like  the  applicant,  were  discharged  because  a  pre-existing  medical  con-
dition prevented them from participating in boot camp could receive an honorable discharge by 
reason  of  “erroneous  entry  (other)”  with  a  JFC  separation  code  under Article  12.B.12.  of  the 
Personnel Manual. 

The Board notes that the circumstances of the applicant’s discharge could also be 
considered a “condition, not a disability,” since the doctor indicated that six months of rehabili-
tation therapy and fitness training would make the applicant’s lower extremities sufficiently fit 
for her to participate in recruit training.  However, because members in the applicant’s circum-
stances  have  previously  been  discharged  by  reason  of  “erroneous  entry  (other)”  under Article 
12.B.12., the Board finds that this is the most appropriate reason for discharge under the applica-
ble regulations, whereas the correction recommended by the Coast Guard would not be in accor-
dance with the Personnel Manual in effect in September 2001. 

There is no evidence in the applicant’s military records to show that she did not 
try her best to succeed during recruit training.  Therefore, the Board finds that if she had been 
properly discharged under Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual, she would have received an 
honorable discharge. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by making the following corrections to the 

applicant’s DD 214 and other military records: 

 
•  The character of service in block 24 should be “Honorable.” 
•  The separation authority cited in block 25 should be Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel 
Manual. 
•  The separation code in block 26 should be JFC. 
•  The reentry code in block 27 should be RE-3E. 
•  The narrative reason for separation in block 28 should be “Erroneous Entry (Other).” 
 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former SN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

of her military record is granted in part as follows: 

ORDER 

 

show the following: 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct her records and issue her a new DD 214 (not a DD 215) to 

 
•  The character of service in block 24 shall be “Honorable.” 
•  The separation authority cited in block 25 shall be Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel 
Manual. 
•  The separation code in block 26 shall be JFC. 
•  The reentry code in block 27 shall be RE-3E. 
•  The narrative reason for separation in block 28 shall be “Erroneous Entry (Other).” 
 
The  following  notation  may  be  made  in  block  18  of  the  new  DD  214:    "Action  taken 

pursuant to order of BCMR." 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn