DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-039 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 
 

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 December 4, 
2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military and medical records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  28,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was discharged from 
the Coast Guard in 1987 by reason of physical disability instead of by reason of convenience of 
the government due to good and sufficient reason, as determined by the Commandant.  
 
 
The  applicant  did  not  specifically  identify  the  medical  disability  that  he  allegedly 
incurred while on active duty that would have entitled him to a discharge by reason of physical 
disability.  A review of the Department of Veterans Affairs medical record suggests that he is 
seeking a physical disability separation due to schizophrenia and/or a hearing loss.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that the ship’s doctor was not a physician and “certainly was not a 
psychiatrist.”  He alleged that he requested that the executive officer allow him to speak with the 
commanding officer (CO) of the cutter about receiving a medical discharge, but the executive 
officer refused to allow him to speak with the CO and told the applicant that he did not deserve a 
medical discharge.   
 

The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in 1989, but did not provide a 
reason why it is in the interest of justice for the Board to waive the statute of limitations in his 
case.   
 

 

SUMMARY OF RECORD  

On  July  13,  1987,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard.    His  enlistment  medical 

examination showed that he was in good health and qualified for enlistment.    

 
On  September  24,  1987,  the  CO  referred  the  applicant  to  a  Unites  States  Air  Force 

hospital for a mental health evaluation.   The CO stated the following in his referral: 

 
[The applicant] reported aboard this unit on 16 September and within two days, he 
had advised the command that he no longer wanted to be in the Coast Guard and 
wanted to quit.  After that, he became despondent and withdrawn, speaking only 
when questioned then only mumbling and looking at the deck.  He also mentioned 
suicide as a way out of the Coast Guard, although he did not specifically threaten 
it. 

I discussed this problem at length with [the applicant] on 22 September and he 
indicated that his wife was leaving him because of the pressures of military life . . 
. He is 19 years of age and his wife is 18.  He told me that he is primarily unhappy 
because (1) the recruiter who signed him up into the Coast Guard lied and (2) the 
Coast Guard is placing his family life in jeopardy.   
 
The chief of the mental health service at an Air Force hospital issued a mental evaluation 
report  on  the  applicant  dated  October  5,  1987.    The  mental  health  evaluation  stated  the 
following: 

 

 

 
 

 
Mental  Status  Evaluation:    Reveals  a  19  year  old  young  man  that  looks 
approximately the stated age.  He was dressed cleanly and appropriately in service 
uniform and demonstrated good personal hygiene and cleanliness.  He related in a 
compliant,  childlike  manner,  often  using  the  word  “Yessir.”    He  exhibited  a 
simplistic approach to life and problems and saw such in a simple black or while 
dichotomy,  with  no  gray  area.    If  he  made  up  his  mind  on  a  specific  issue,  it 
would  be  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  influence  such  by  logic  or 
making him view the issue from another viewpoint.  There was no evidence of 
cognitive  dysfunctions,  in  terms  of  hallucinations,  illusions  or  delusions.    His 
prevalent affect was one of frustration and despondency, although he was able to 
demonstrate a good range of affect that was appropriate to the thought content.  
He is not seen as suicidal or homicidal currently, although the possibility of self-
destructive  acting  out  if  frustrated  with  his  wants  cannot  be  ruled  out.    My 
assessment of his intelligence would be in the low-normal range, and there was no 
evidence of intellectual dysfunctions.   

Impression:  1.  No evidence of psychiatric or personality disorder. 
 
 
 

2.  Phase of life problem. 
3.  Immature, impulsive, oppositional personality traits. 

Discussion and Recommendations:  This individual’s current perception (”I hate 
the Coast Guard, they lied to me.”), his simplistic way of viewing life as black 
and  white,  his  borderline  normal  intelligence,  a  past  history  suggestive  of 
oppositional  behavior  disorder  of  childhood  and  adolescence,  and  his  current 
personality traits, make me question this individual’s ability to make a successful 
adjustment  to  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard.    Counseling  in  a  military  setting  is  not 
feasible,  nor  expected  to  alter  his  current  views  and  functioning.    It  is  my 
recommendation that the commander seriously consider administrative separation 
as in the best interest of both the Coast Guard and this individual. 

On  October  15,  1987,  the  applicant  acknowledged  the  proposed  discharge  for  the 

 
 
On  October  13,  1987,  a  United  States  Public  Health  Service  (USPHS)  captain  and 
medical officer wrote that he agreed with the opinions of the Air force psychiatrist and concurred 
that the applicant’s immature personality traits significantly impaired his ability to function in 
the military environment.  The captain recommended that the applicant  be separated from the 
service for unsuitability.   
 
 
On  October  15,  1987,  the  applicant’s  CO  informed  the  applicant  that  he  was 
recommending  that  the  applicant  be  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  two 
medical  doctors  had  diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  immature  personality  traits  and  both 
doctors had recommended the applicant’s discharge.   
 
 
convenience of the government and stated that he had no objections to the discharge.   
 
 
On  October  22,  1987,  the  CO  recommended  that  the  Commandant  discharge  the 
applicant from the Coast Guard for the convenience of the government.  The CO stated that the 
applicant  told  him  that  he  would  do  whatever  was  necessary  to  get  out  of  the  Coast  Guard 
despite  extensive  counseling  by  the  executive  officer,  the  applicant’s  department  head,  and 
himself.  The CO further stated that as a result of the applicant’s lack of response to counseling 
and leadership, he was referred for a mental evaluation.  The chief of the mental health service 
who  performed  the  evaluation  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard as it would be in the best interest of the government and the member.  The CO also noted 
the concurrence by the USPHS captain that the applicant should be discharged.   
 
 
he was qualified for discharge from the Coast Guard. 
 
 
the Coast Guard with an honorable discharge. 
 
 
On December 15, 1987, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard 
for the convenience of the government, as determined by the Commandant, with a corresponding 
JND  (convenience  of  the  government)  separation  code  and  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  for 
reenlistment) reenlistment code.   
 
   

On October 31, 1987, the applicant agreed with the results of a physical examination that 

On November 5, 1987, the Commandant directed that the applicant be discharged from 

Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) Records  
 
 
On  July  2,  2005,  the  applicant  submitted  an  application  to  the  DVA  for  disability 
compensation.  He claimed that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia that was incurred 
while serving on active duty from July 2, 1987 through December 15, 1987.  On July 24, 2006, 
the  DVA  issued  a  decision  denying  the  applicant’s  claim  for  service  connection  for  paranoid 
schizophrenia.    The  DVA  noted  that  the  applicant’s  Coast  Guard  medical  record  showed  no 
complaints, treatment, observation or diagnosis for paranoid schizophrenia while the applicant 
was in the Coast Guard.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 26, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request, in accordance with 
the memorandum from the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), attached as 
Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.   

 
CGPC noted that the application was untimely, but offered the following opinions and 

conclusions if the Board chose to consider the application on the merits.   

 
The command referred [the applicant] for a mental evaluation which yielded no 
medical/psychiatric diagnosis, but recommended administrative separation.   The 
applicant was processed for discharge for the convenience of the government and 
concurred with the discharge.  He accepted the findings of his alternate separation 
physical  which  revealed  no  disqualifying  medical  conditions  or  conditions  that 
would warrant Physical Disability Evaluations (PDES) Processing.  The applicant 
was discharged with an honorable discharge after completing 5 months and 3 days 
of active service. 
 
The applicant’s record and discharge processing are presumptively correct and the 
Applicant has not provided any evidence to support any error or injustice . . .  the 
applicant has not met his burden of proving an error or injustice.    

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On April 26, 2007, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
giving him 30 days to respond to the advisory opinion.  The Board did not receive a reply 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 applicable law: 
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.   

 
 
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 alleged error or injustice was or 
should  have  been  discovered.    See  33  CFR  52.22.  Although  the  applicant  stated  that  he 
discovered the alleged error in 1989, he did not file an application with the Board until 2006, 
some seventeen years later.   
 

3.  However, the failure to file timely may be waived, if the Board finds that it is in the 
interest of justice to do so.  Although the applicant did not explain why it would be in the interest 
of justice for the Board to excuse his failure to file timely, the Board must perform a cursory 
review of the merits to determine whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of 
limitations in this case. 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."   

 
4.  Based upon a cursory review of the merits, the Board finds that it is unlikely that the 
applicant will prevail on his claim for a physical disability separation.   There is no evidence in 
the  Coast  Guard  medical  record  that  the  applicant  incurred  a  debilitating  condition  during  his 
five months of active duty.  Moreover, the Board notes that the applicant’s 2005 DVA claim for 
disability compensation was denied by the DVA.  The DVA also found no evidence in the Coast 
Guard medical record that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia while on active duty.  Nor is 
there any evidence in the record that the applicant incurred a hearing loss or disease while in the 
Coast Guard.  

 
5.  The applicant’s claim that he was not evaluated by a doctor or psychiatrist while on 
active duty is refuted by the record.  The Board notes in this regard that he was evaluated by the 
chief of mental services of an Air Force hospital and by a USPHS medical officer.   

 
6.  Accordingly, due to the length of the delay, the lack of a persuasive reason for not 
filing  his  application  sooner,  and  the  probable  lack  of  success  on  the  merits  of  his  claim,  the 
Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  should  be  denied  because  it  is  untimely  and  because  it  lacks 
merit.   
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 
 
 Richard Walter