DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-028 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  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 November 24, 
2006, upon receipt of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated August  30,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former boatswain’s mate third class (BM3; pay grade E-4) in the Coast 
Guard,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  reinstating  him  on  active  duty  or,  if  not,  by 
upgrading his reenlistment code to RE-1 (eligible) and changing his narrative reason for separa-
tion “appropriately.”  The applicant was honorably discharged on March 11, 2005, with an RE-4 
reenlistment code (ineligible) and “personality disorder” as his narrative reason for separation.  
By order of the Commandant following review by the Discharge Review Board, the applicant’s 
narrative reason for separation was corrected to “unsuitability” by means of a DD 215.  His dis-
charge form, DD 214, still bears the words “personality disorder,” however, and his separation 
code is JFX, which means that he was involuntarily discharged due to a personality disorder.1 
 

                                                 
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 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. 

 
The applicant alleged that he does “not suffer from a personality disorder or any other 
dysfunctional behavior.”  He alleged that the doctor made the diagnosis after speaking with him 
for only 30 to 45 minutes, which, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders (DSM), is too short a time in which to make such a diagnosis.  He alleged that he was 
incorrectly and unfairly diagnosed with a permanent personality disorder based solely on his two 
attempts at suicide. 
 
The applicant stated that the Coast Guard’s doctor assumed that there was something per-
 
manently wrong with him because of his suicide attempts.  However, after he was discharged, the 
applicant consulted five different doctors, who did not diagnose him with a personality disorder 
or  any  other  psychiatric  disorder.   The  applicant  alleged  that  his  attempts  at  suicide  were  the 
result  of  a  severe  but  temporary  depression  caused  by  his  break-up  with  his  girlfriend  and  a 
temporary adjustment disorder,2 which is not a personality disorder.  He stated that his girlfriend 
had broken up with him because of his “jealousy and mistakes” but that he had loved her dearly. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he should not have been discharged because there was no rea-
son to discharge him since he had and has no personality disorder.  Therefore, he requested rein-
statement  on  active  duty.    If  that  is  not  possible,  he  asked  for  an  RE-1  code  and  the  right  to 
reenlist without any loss of rank.  He asked to appear in person before the Board. 
 
 
 

The applicant submitted many documents in support of his allegations, including  

•  an email from the former commanding officer of the cutter, whose tour ended in August 
2004, stated that the applicant’s “performance and professionalism were always exceptional” 
and that he “demonstrated good leadership and strong team skills and was about to be pro-
moted to BM2 and transferred to a small boat station”;  
 
•  an email from a fellow BM3 aboard the cutter, who stated that the applicant was a quick 
learner and an exceptional worker who performed his duties “at the highest standards due to 
his required perfection”;  

•  an email from a master chief petty officer, who stated that he had spoken with the appli-
cant by phone; that the applicant seemed normal during their telephone conversation; that he 
was  concerned  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  reacted  too  fast  in  discharging  the  applicant  for 
behavior that occurred in a short period of time rather than for a long-term pattern of behav-
ior; and that he had been discouraged when he asked about getting a second opinion for the 
applicant;  

•  a  letter  from  the  applicant’s  supervisor  at  a  retail  store,  who  stated  that  the  applicant 
always met his goals and easily built rapport with both coworkers and customers; and 

 

 

 

                                                 
2 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 not personality disorders and 
normally disappear when the stressors disappear.  American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL 
MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 679.   

•  a letter from the applicant’s mother, who stated that the applicant had no history of men-
tal health problems and that no one in the family had “ever noticed anything wrong or suspi-
cious about [the applicant’s] personality.” 

 

 
is a fairly competent and intelligent individual who at times has difficulty taking his job seriously, 
and has great difficulty in being responsible for his actions.  During this evaluation period he had 
been involved in an auto accident while racing, was issued a reckless driving ticket, had an alco-
hol[-related] situation and had been counseled and documented on the improper use of a govern-
ment computer.  When counseled about these matters, his conception is that it was wrong because 
he was caught.  He flatly refuses to take responsibility for the alcohol[-related] situation, blaming 
it on an unknown reason, even when blood tests revealed no other chemical in his blood.  He is 
unsafe on the roads, as attested by his driving record, which if kept up will most definitely harm 
himself  and  others.    [The  applicant]  is  unresponsive  at  times  when  reminded  of  basic  safety 
precautions  on  the  boat  deck.    [He]  is  a  qualified  BMOW  and  as  such  I  expect  him  to  show  a 
greater level of responsibility.  While he can work very hard on individual projects, he does not 
consistently present a positive example for junior sailors to follow.  [He] has not shown the matur-
ity  or  professionalism  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  Petty  Officer  in  the  Coast  Guard,  and  is  not 
recommended for advancement. 
 
On December 1, 2004, the applicant was advanced to BM3.   

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORDS 

 

On December 10, 2002, at the age of 20 years, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  
Upon enlistment, the applicant was counseled about the Service’s drug and alcohol policies.  His 
record  contains  several  commendations  for  excellent  performance,  including  a  “Sailor  of  the 
Month” award for March 2003.     

 
On December 31, 2003, the applicant was taken to a hospital emergency room by civilian 
authorities and treated for alcohol poisoning.  This event was documented as an “alcohol inci-
dent.”  He was screened and found not to meet the criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence.  On 
his performance evaluation dated January 31, 2004, the applicant received good marks except for 
low marks for Health and Well-Being, Responsibility, and Setting an Example, due to his alcohol 
incident.    The  applicant  was  referred  to  and  completed  all  sessions  of  an Alcohol  and  Drug 
IMPACT Program at a Navy hospital on April 6, 2004. 
 

On July 3, 2004, the applicant was counseled about installing history-destroying software 
on a government computer and using the computer to visit sexually-oriented websites.  On his 
performance evaluation  dated July 31, 2004, the applicant received mostly  average marks but 
low marks for Monitoring Work, Safety, Integrity, Responsibility, and Setting an Example.  His 
supervisor initially did not recommend him for advancement, commenting that he  

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
 
On December 15, 2004, the applicant was hospitalized at Madigan Army Medical Center 
after attempting suicide by overdosing on Vicodin.  He explained that he had tried to end his life 
because of an argument with his girlfriend (a Coast Guard member), occupational dissatisfaction, 
and his sister’s attempted suicide three days earlier.  The applicant was released the next day with 
a doctor’s Axis I diagnosis of “adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and con-
duct.”  An Axis II diagnosis was “deferred,” but a doctor noted that the applicant had narcissistic 

duty and was a candidate for administrative separation. 
 
 
On January 1, 2005, the applicant was hospitalized again at Madigan Army Medical Cen-
ter after overdosing on 30 tablets of 800 milligrams of Motrin each.  He stated that he was trying 
to make his heartache go away because his girlfriend refused to get back together with him.  The 
applicant denied symptoms of a major depressive disorder but “expressed interest in a trial of 
antidepressant  medications  to  target  symptoms  of  irritability  and  low  frustration  tolerance.”  
Therefore, he was prescribed 50 milligrams of Zoloft per day.  The applicant received an Axis I 
diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct and an Axis II diagnosis of 
narcissistic  and  histrionic  traits.    The  doctor  also  noted  that  the  applicant  might  also  have  a 
“personality disorder NOS” (not otherwise specified).  On January 4, 2005, the doctor reported 
that he told the applicant’s chain of command “that there is no requirement for immediate dis-
charge and that [the applicant] is recommended for a trial of duty.  However, final administrative 
disposition is a decision for command and he should be discharged from active duty if he contin-
ues to struggle with suicidality and poor frustration tolerance.”  The applicant was ordered not to 
attempt further contact with his former girlfriend. 
 
 
On January 6, 2005, the applicant’s commanding officer notified him that he was initiat-
ing an honorable discharge for him “based on [his] diagnosed personality disorder.”  He advised 
the applicant that he had a right to submit a statement on his own behalf. 
 

On January 12, 2005, a staff psychiatrist at Madigan Army Medical Center examined the 
applicant.    The  applicant  complained  of  feeling  depressed  and  anxious  for  about  one  month 
because of a failed relationship.  The psychiatrist also reported that the applicant had been seen 
briefly on January 7, 2005, “for evaluation of his fitness for duty,” because his command had 
questions  about  his  emotional  stability  and  the  applicant  was  frustrated  that  he  was  not  being 
allowed  to  get  underway  with  his  cutter,  which  was  being  deployed  to  the  Middle  East.   The 
applicant was being evaluated again because of his “increased anxiety and desire to clarify his 
situation as he was worried after the discussion on 07 Jan that he would be discharged.” 
 
 
The Army psychiatrist reported that the failed relationship was with a shipmate and that it 
had lasted four months but that the applicant considered it very serious.  The applicant had “no 
history of any previous emotional problems,” had previously been “considered an excellent ser-
vice member and had received commendations on numerous occasions and had been promoted 
ahead of his peers.”  
 

and obsessive-compulsive traits.  Upon his release from the hospital, the applicant agreed to a 
“contract for safety,” promising to seek help if he found himself considering suicide again. 
 

On December 17, 2004, a physician’s assistant noted that the applicant was not fit for sea 

After  reviewing  the  applicant’s  records,  the Army  psychiatrist  reported  that  there  was 
“[n]o  evidence  of  a  mood  disturbance,  but  some  long-standing  coping  mechanism  that  limits 
flexibility in decision making.  He has above average intelligence and thus has the ability to mas-
ter new information and skills quickly.  He has extremely high standards for himself and others.”  
He also reported that the applicant’s “[r]ecent behavior has been impulsive as [he] has difficulty 
with situations he is unable to influence.”  The Army psychiatrist reported that the applicant’s 

prognosis was poor because of a pre-existing personality disorder that prevented adaptation to 
the military lifestyle and recommended that he be administratively separated.  He also recom-
mended that the applicant continue taking Zoloft and made the following diagnoses: 
 

Axis I:  Adjustment Disorder – Mixed 309.3 
Axis II:  Personality Disorder – Mixed type 
Axis III:  No medical conditions 
Axis IV:  Stressors:  Occupational and lack of adequate social support system 
Axis V:  Global assessment of functioning: 
 
 
 
 

Current:  51-60 Moderate impairment of functioning 
Suicidal ideation is NOT present. 
Homicidal ideation is NOT present. 
Physical and mental capabilities and limitations: None 

 
On January 13, 2005, the applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf objecting to 
 
his discharge.  The applicant admitted that his behavior had been “pretty serious” but denied hav-
ing a problem other than having gone “through a tremendous emotional pain like nobody could 
ever imagine.”  He stated that the discharge “would literally destroy [his] life financially, profes-
sionally, and family-wise” and that he “would be left on the street.”  He stated that he under-
stands why nobody trusts him even though he had learned and matured from his experience.  He 
asked for one last chance to make a career in the Coast Guard. 
 

On February 11, 2005, the applicant asked to see the Army psychiatrist again and told 
him that he was seeking a second opinion since he was unhappy about being discharged.  The 
applicant insisted that he was “now capable of handling stress and would never have a problem 
with his personal concerns leading him to consider suicide.  He wants to remain in the Coast 
Guard or enter the law enforcement field.”  The Army psychiatrist reported that the applicant’s 
reaction was “appropriate” when he would not be altering his diagnosis or recommendation. 
 
 
On February 17, 2005, the applicant consulted a Navy clinical psychologist at a different 
hospital for a second opinion.  On March 8, 2005, the psychologist noted that the applicant had 
an adjustment disorder with a depressed mood, which was resolving, and that he was referring 
the  applicant  for  psychological  testing  to  assess  the  previous Axis  II  diagnosis  of  personality 
disorder NOS (not otherwise specified).  
 
 
On February 24, 2005, the applicant’s case was reviewed by the Area commander under 
the “second chance” waiver program, but the applicant was not granted a waiver.  On March 4, 
2005, CGPC ordered that the applicant be discharged no later than April 1, 2005, with a JFX 
separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
 

On March 11, 2005, the applicant received an honorable discharge with an RE-4 reenlist-
ment code, a JFX separation code, and “personality disorder” as the narrative reason for separa-
tion shown on his DD 214. 
 

Following his discharge, the applicant sought mental health testing to prove that he does 
not have a personality disorder.  On April 25, 2005, a clinical psychologist interviewed the appli-

cant for an outpatient psychosocial assessment and gave him an initial diagnosis of an adjustment 
disorder on Axis I and a personality disorder with traits deferred on Axis II.  On May 5, 2005, a 
different clinical psychologist interviewed the applicant for another mental health examination 
and reported that the applicant had no mental disorders on either Axis I or II.   

 
On June 1, 2005, a staff psychiatrist at a mental health clinic of the Department of Veter-
ans’ Affairs wrote that he had met with the applicant on May 17, 2005, and again on May 31, 
2005, to discuss the results of his Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) and 
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III) tests.  The tests showed that the applicant is “a 
high energy individual with some impulsivity, also some narcissistic traits” but that he does not 
have  a  personality  disorder  or  any  other  psychiatric  disorder.   The  DVA  psychiatrist  gave  the 
applicant a “deferred” Axis II diagnosis and an Axis I diagnosis of “adjustment disorder with dis-
turbance of mood and conduct.”  He also wrote the following: 

 
At present, [the applicant] does not exhibit [symptoms] consistent with a diagnosis of personality 
disorder.  The recent severity of his response to separation from his girlfriend does, however, need 
to be clearly explained.  At present, adjustment [disorder] appears to be the most likely diagnosis, 
and I would question the simultaneous diagnosis of adjustment [disorder] and personality disorder, 
as the former diagnosis would make the latter quite difficult to assess. 

 
 
On May 9, 2006, the DVA staff psychiatrist reported stated that the applicant’s psychiatric 
symptoms “had resolved completely” and that he had recently interviewed the applicant and his 
family and found “no evidence of any psychiatric illness or symptoms since my evaluation.” 
 
 
On June 9, 2006, after reviewing the applicant’s evidence, the Discharge Review Board 
(DRB) recommended that the Commandant correct his record only by upgrading his reenlistment 
code from RE-4 to RE-3G, which would make him eligible for reenlistment except for a disquali-
fying  factor—the  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder.    The  DRB  noted  that  the  applicant  had 
appeared in person and was  
 

sincere,  articulate,  and  accepted  responsibility  for  his  past  actions.    In  addition,  the  applicant 
submitted  extensive  documentation  to  refute  the  military  psychiatrist’s  diagnosis  of  personality 
disorder.  These recent psychiatric evaluations indicate he no longer has a personality disorder, is 
not a threat  to self or others  and does not possess suicidal tendencies.  While this Board is not 
qualified to validate these medical diagnoses, the Board recommends upgrading his existing reen-
try  code  RE-4  to  RE-3G  which  would  allow  his  record  to  be  reviewed  by  competent  medical 
authorities to determine his suitability for future military service. 

 

On  June  23,  2006,  the  applicant  began  working  in  Iraq  as  a  linguist  employed  by  the 

Titan Corporation on a private contract with the Department of Defense. 

 
On  September  5,  2006,  the  Commandant  disapproved  the  DRB’s  recommendation  but 
ordered that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation be changed from “personality disor-
der” to “unsuitability.”  This ordered correction was implemented by issuance of a DD 215.3 
 

                                                 
3 During the DRB proceedings, it was also noted that the applicant’s first name was misspelled on his DD 214, so 
the misspelling was also corrected on the DD 215. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 12, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief by correcting the applicant’s 
narrative reason for discharge to “Condition, Not a Disability,” his separation code to JFV, and 
his  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3G.    The  JAG  adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  provided  in  a 
memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   
 

CGPC stated that the applicant was discharged in accordance with Coast Guard policy 
after he twice tried to  commit suicide and was  diagnosed with a personality disorder.  CGPC 
stated that in January 2005, the applicant’s conduct and medical condition supported his diagno-
sis  of  and  discharge  for  personality  disorder.    CGPC  pointed  out  that  under  the  Coast  Guard 
regulations, the applicant’s diagnosed  adjustment disorder, which he did  not dispute, was also 
grounds for separation due to unsuitability with a JNC separation code (for “unacceptable con-
duct”) and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
CGPC noted that the diagnoses received by the applicant after his discharge did not fully 
concur with the diagnoses made by the Army psychiatrist and recommended that the Board cor-
rect his record to show that he was discharged for a “Condition, Not A Disability” with the corre-
sponding  JFV  separation  code  and  an  RE-3G  reenlistment  code  under Article  12.B.12.  of  the 
Personnel Manual.  CGPC stated that neither reinstatement on active duty nor an RE-1 is justi-
fied.  CGPC stated that an RE-3G would not bar the applicant from further military service “but 
does  require  [him]  to  substantiate  to  the  gaining  Service  that  the  conditions  which  led  to  dis-
charge have been alleviated to the gaining Service’s standards.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 16, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant the views of the Coast Guard and invited 
him to respond.  On May 25, 2007, the applicant responded from Iraq, stating that he does not 
object to the Coast Guard’s recommendations except that he still wants his reenlistment code to 
be upgraded to RE-1 so that he would not have to prove to a recruiter that the conditions that led 
to his discharge have been alleviated and deferred, as he believes that he has already proved this 
fact to the Coast Guard, the DRB, and the BCMR.   
 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted personnel with 
 
diagnosed  personality  disorders  that  are  listed  in  Chapter  5  of  the  Medical  Manual  to  be  dis-
charged by reason of unsuitability at the direction of the Commandant.  
 
 
Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual lists personality disorders that qualify a member for 
administrative discharge pursuant to Article 12.B. of the Personnel Manual.  Adjustment disor-
ders  are  not  included  among  the  personality  disorders  listed  in  Chapter  5.B.2.  of  the  Medical 
Manual.    Chapter  5.B.3  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  adjustment  disorders  are  generally 
treatable and may or may not be grounds for separation.  Chapter 3.F.16.d of the Medical Manual 
states that adjustment disorders “do not render an individual unfit because of physical impair-

 

ment.  However, if these conditions are recurrent and interfere with military duty, are not amena-
ble  to  treatment,  or  require  prolonged  treatment,  administrative  separation  should  be  recom-
mended (see Section 5-B).” 

 
Article 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual provides that every member discharged under 
the  article  shall  be  notified  of  the  reason  he  is  being  considered  for  discharge  and  shall  be 
allowed to submit a statement on his own behalf.   
 

Article 12.B.12.a.12. of the Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted personnel with a diag-
nosed “condition that, though not a physical disability, interferes with performance of duty” to be 
discharged for the convenience of the Government.   
 
 
Article 1.E. of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms states that a 
member’s DD 214 should show a separation code and reenlistment code “as shown in the SPD 
Handbook or as stated by [CGPC] in the message granting discharge authority.”  The narrative 
reason  for  separation  on  the  DD  214  must  be  whatever  is  specified  by  CGPC.    The  SPD 
Handbook  includes  the  following  combinations  of  codes  and  narrative  reasons  for  separation 
which might apply to the applicant’s case: 
 

SPD 
Code 
JFX 

Narrative Reason 
for Separation 
Personality 
Disorder 

 

RE Code 
RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

Separation 
Authority 
12.B.16. 

JFV 

Condition, Not a 
Disability 

RE-4 or 
RE-3G 

12.B.12. 

 
Explanation 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when a personality 
disorder exists, not amounting to a disability, which poten-
tially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. 
Involuntarily discharge [by direction] when a condition, not 
a physical disability, interferes with the performance of 
duty (Enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, obesity, fear of 
flying, et al.) 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

The record shows that after the applicant’s second attempt at suicide by overdose, 
his  command  initiated  his  discharge  for  unsuitability  on  January  6,  2005,  in  accordance  with 
Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  The command noted a diagnosed personality disorder 
as the reason for this action although that diagnosis was still provisional, according to the medi-
cal records, and was not confirmed by an Army psychiatrist until January 12, 2005.  The doctors 
who diagnosed the applicant while he was hospitalized apparently attributed his suicidal behav-
ior primarily to an adjustment disorder, which is not a personality disorder and is usually tempo-
rary, as it disappears when the stressor disappears.4  Subsequent psychological testing has thrown 
some doubt on the accuracy of the Army psychiatrist’s diagnosis. 
                                                 
4  Coast Guard Medical Manual, Chap. 5.B.2.; DSM-IV-TR, p. 679. 

 

1. 

 
2. 

The applicant asked the Board to reinstate him on active duty.  Whether the appli-
cant suffered from an adjustment disorder, a personality disorder, or both when he attempted sui-
cide, however, the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed no error or injustice5 in discharg-
ing him.   The Personnel Manual  and Medical Manual permit the separation of members with 
diagnosed  adjustment  disorders,  as  well  as  those  with  personality  disorders,  and  the  applicant 
received due process under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  The record shows that the 
applicant told doctors when he was being treated after his suicide attempts that he was unhappy 
not only because of his break-up with his girlfriend but also because of his unhappiness with his 
occupational situation—i.e., military service in the Coast Guard.  Therefore, the Board finds that 
his command did not err in finding that he should be discharged for unsuitability under Article 
12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  Although psychological testing has cast doubt on the appli-
cant’s exact diagnosis, the Board is not persuaded that the Coast Guard was wrong to discharge 
the applicant after he twice tried to kill himself by overdosing on drugs.  The Board notes that 
the  applicant  twice  committed  self-injury,  which  is  a  violation  of  Article  134  of  the  Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and did so by wrongfully using controlled substances, which is 
a violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ.6   The applicant has not proved that he should be rein-
stated on active duty.  

Because employers often demand to see former members’ DD 214s prior to hiring 
them, it is very  important for DD 214s to be fair and not to unduly tarnish members’ records 
without substantial evidence.  In light of the highly prejudicial nature of a discharge by reason of 
“personality  disorder,”  the  Board  has  often  ordered  the  Coast  Guard  to  correct  the  narrative 
reason on a DD 214 to “condition, not a disability” or some other less prejudicial reason when 
the diagnosis of personality disorder was uncertain or not supported by inappropriate behavior.7  
On the other hand, the Board has not removed the narrative reason “personality disorder” from 
the DD 214s of some veterans whose inappropriate conduct supported their diagnoses.8 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  applicant’s  current  DD  214  reflects  an  honorable  discharge  due  to  a  diag-
nosed “personality disorder.”  The Coast Guard later issued a DD 215 form correcting the narra-

                                                 
5 For purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that shocks 
the sense of justice.” Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 
(citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 
6 The Board also notes that both of the applicant’s suicide attempts could have been documented as “drug incidents” 
under  Article  20.A.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  since  the  applicant  wrongfully  used  drugs  for  other  than  their 
intended  use.    Under  Articles  12.B.18.  and  20.C.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  every  member  involved  in  a  “drug 
incident” is processed for a general discharge.  See, e.g., BCMR Docket No. 2005-128, wherein the Board upheld 
the general discharge of a member for drug abuse after he admitted that he had tried to kill himself with an overdose. 
7 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2005-082, 2005-045, 2004-044, and 2003-015. 
8 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2001-020, 2000-142, 1999-185, 1999-037, and 1998-099 in which the Board upheld 
the unsuitability and personality disorder discharges of, respectively, a veteran who was diagnosed with a dependent 
personality disorder after going AWOL and committing various other disciplinary infractions; a veteran who was 
diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and went to an historic tower, told a guard at the bottom that he was 
going to hang himself off the top with a dog collar and leash, and waited at the top until the police arrived; a veteran 
with  numerous  disciplinary  infractions  and  performance  problems  in  his  record  who  was  diagnosed  by  two 
psychiatrists  with  a  borderline  personality  disorder;  a  veteran  who  frequently  exhibited  inappropriate  sexual 
behavior over a two-year period and was twice diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct”; 
and a veteran who was twice arrested for indecent exposure and diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. 

tive reason for separation to “unsuitability,” but the words “personality disorder” remain clearly 
visible on his DD 214.  The Coast Guard now recommends that the Board correct the narrative 
reason for separation from “unsuitability” to “condition, not a disability.”  Although the appli-
cant’s  attempts  at  suicide  and  other  documented  misconduct  support  the  Army  psychiatrist’s 
diagnosis, in light of the results of the psychological testing and the Coast Guard’s recommenda-
tion, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to correct the narrative reason on the appli-
cant’s DD 214 to “condition, not a disability.”  Moreover, the correction should be made on a 
newly issued DD 214, rather than by means of a DD 215. 

The article of the Personnel Manual that authorizes the discharge of a member for 
a condition that is not a disability is Article 12.B.12., rather than Article 12.B.16.  Therefore, the 
discharge authority noted on the applicant’s DD 214 should also be corrected to be consistent 
with his narrative reason for discharge.  In addition, the separation code that corresponds to a dis-
charge by reason of “condition, not a disability” is JFV, rather than JFX. 

The applicant asked that his reenlistment code be upgraded from RE-4 (ineligible) 
to RE-1 (eligible).  Under the SPD Handbook, however, an RE-1 is not authorized for any mem-
ber discharged as a result of a “condition, not a disability.”  Nor is the Board persuaded that the 
applicant should be eligible for reenlistment without any consideration of his past reactions to 
stress.  Although the DRB recommended that the applicant’s reenlistment code be upgraded to 
RE-3G, which would allow him to reenlist if he can persuade the recruiting command of a mili-
tary service that the condition for which he was discharged no longer exists, the Commandant 
disapproved that recommendation in September 2006.  Now, however, CGPC recommends that 
the Board upgrade the applicant’s reenlistment code to RE-3G. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

The record shows that the applicant twice attempted to kill himself when under 
stress.  Although the stress was temporary and his suicide attempts apparently stopped, the Board 
finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his RE-4 reenlist-
ment code is erroneous or unjust.  Whether the applicant’s suicide attempts resulted from a tem-
porary adjustment disorder or a personality disorder is moot given the undisputed fact that his 
response to stress on two occasions was to try to kill himself.  Moreover, less than three years 
have passed since the applicant’s suicide attempts and discharge, which is an insufficient amount 
of time for the Board to be satisfied that the applicant has overcome the problems that caused his 
separation.  In light of the applicant’s relatively recent suicide attempts and the highly stressful 
situations  in  which  servicemembers  must  often  perform,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the 
applicant should be made eligible for reenlistment even if he is able to persuade a recruiter that 
he no longer suffers from the stresses that preceded his discharge.  His reenlistment code should 
remain RE-4.  However, the Board might reconsider this decision, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.67, 
if the applicant later submits substantial evidence of five full years of continuous good mental 
health, emotional stability, and mature and appropriate conduct. 

Accordingly, the Board should grant partial relief by ordering the Coast Guard to 
issue the applicant a new DD 214 showing that he was discharged under Article 12.B.12. of the 
Personnel Manual with a JFV separation code and “condition, not a disability” as his narrative 
reason for separation, but the applicant’s RE-4 reenlistment code should not be upgraded and he 
should not be reinstated.  

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for  correction 

of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
•  Block 25 on his DD 214 shall be corrected to show that he was discharged under the 
authority of Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A). 
 
•  Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code JFV. 
 
•  Block  28  shall  be  corrected  to  show  “CONDITION,  NOT A  DISABILITY”  as  the 
narrative reason for separation. 
 
•  The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD 214 with these corrections made 
in the original (not by hand and not by issuing a DD 215). 
 
•  The following notation shall be made in block 18 of the new DD 214:  "Action taken 
pursuant to order of BCMR." 
 
•  No other relief is granted. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall