DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-200 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 August 30, 
2007, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).  
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  29,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by removing personality disorder as 
the narrative reason for his discharge.  The applicant’s military record indicates that he enlisted 
in the Coast Guard on February 4, 2003. He was honorably discharged on December 15, 2003, 
by reason of unsuitability, with a JFX (personality disorder) separation code and an RE-4 (not 
eligible for reenlistment) reenlistment code.    
 
 
The applicant stated that at the time of his discharge he was mentally distressed due to the 
deaths  of  his  father  and  brother  within  a  four-day  period.    He  submitted  the  following  short 
statement  dated April  27,  2007,  from  his  psychiatrist:    “[The  applicant]  is  currently  receiving 
treatment from me . . .  He is not diagnosed with a personality disorder.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on February 4, 2003.   After completing recruit 

 
 
training the applicant reported to a Coast Guard cutter for duty. 
 
 
On July 21, 2003, a staff psychologist assigned to a Navy clinic, evaluated the applicant.  
The  psychologist’s  report  was  reviewed  and  approved  by  a  psychiatrist.    The  psychologist 
diagnosed the applicant with the following: 
 

A:  Axis  I:    Adjustment  Disorder  with  mixed  anxiety  and  depressed  mood,  Severe 
Occupational problems 
Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS (Schizoid, Borderline and Avoidant traits) 
Axis III:  Stomach pain 
Axis IV:  Routine Military Stressors 
Axis IV:  GAF=55-60 
Non-employment related 

The psychologist reported that the applicant stated that he was not experiencing suicidal 

 
 
thoughts as he had previously.  The psychologist further reported: 
 

The  patient  continues  having  violent  fantasies  and  thoughts,  but  he  remains  in 
control of these.  Patient is not considered an imminent danger.  It appears that the 
patient has become much more stable and he has been benefiting from medication 
and  psychotherapy.    However,  these  benefits  are  not  sufficient  to  consider 
returning the patient to full duty.  The goal of stabilizing the patient has been met 
at this time and ongoing treatment and evaluation has led to the conclusion that 
the individual’s symptoms are likely a byproduct of his personality structure and 
inability  to  cope  in  the  military  environment.    His  axis  I  conditions  are  greatly 
influenced and exacerbated by his personality disorder, which is longstanding and 
pervasive in nature and which is not likely to be successfully treated with short-
term therapy.  At this point, it is recommended that this patient be administratively 
separated.   

 
 
On August  23,  2003,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  informed  the  applicant 
that  the  CO  had  initiated  action  to  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  the 
applicant had been diagnosed with a personality disorder.   The CO advised the applicant that he 
could  submit  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf  and  that  if  he  disagreed  with  the  discharge,  his 
rebuttal would be forwarded with the CO’s recommendation.   
 
 
On  August  23,  2003,  the  CO  requested  permission  from  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) to discharge the applicant due to his personality disorder.  The CO 
recommended that the applicant be given an honorable discharge and noted that the applicant had 
no disciplinary or adverse administrative actions during his enlistment.   
 
 
waived his right to submit a statement in his behalf, and did not object to the discharge.   
 
 
unsuitability due to a personality disorder with an RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
 
On July 18, 2006, the DRB reviewed the applicant’s request to have his reenlistment code 
 
upgraded  from  RE-4  to  RE-3F  or  3-P.    The  DRB  recommended  by  a  vote  of  4  to  1  that  the 
applicant’s reenlistment code be changed to RE-3G for the following reason: 

On October 14, 2003, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed discharge, 

On  November  14,  2003,  CGPC  approved  the  applicant’s  discharge  by  reason  of 

 

The [majority] of the Board felt that the discharge was carried out in accordance 
with  Coast  Guard  policy.    Under  the  Separation  Code  Designator  (SPD) 
Handbook a reentry code of RE-3G was an option for the separation given.  The 
Board  is  providing  the  applicant  a  chance  to  show  to  a  recruiter  the  condition 
under which he was discharged has been corrected.   
 
 
On October 5, 2006, the President of the DRB wrote a memorandum to the Commandant 
 
through the Deputy Judge Advocate General apparently in response to a memorandum from the 
Coast Guard Office of General Law, requesting comments on whether the narrative reason for 
the  applicant’s  discharge  should  be  changed  from  unsuitability  to  personality  disorder.    The 
President  of  the  DRB  stated  that  in  accordance  with  COMDTINST  M1900.4D  (Certificate  of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) unsuitability was the correct reason for the applicant’s 
discharge and that the narrative reason should remain as stated on the DD Form 214.   
 
 
On  October  23,  2006,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  General  Law  concurred  with  the 
President’s recommendation that no change be made to the DD Form 214.  The Chief found the 
DRB’s decision to be legally sufficient.   
 
 
On November 29, 2006, the Commandant (CG-09) disapproved the recommendation of 
the  DRB  and  stated  that  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214  shall  stand  as  issued.    The  approving 
official did not state the basis for the decision to disapprove the recommendation of the DRB 
majority to upgrade the applicant’s reenlistment code.    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 15, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant.  In this regard, the 
JAG agreed with comments submitted by CGPC, who wrote the following in pertinent part: 
 

The  processing  of  the  applicant’s  discharge  is  proper  and  in  accordance  with 
applicable Service regulations for processing a member for unsuitability due to a 
personality disorder.  The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by 
a psychologist and psychiatrist.  He was notified of the intent to discharge him 
and did not object to discharge from the Coast  Guard.   The Coast Guard acted 
appropriately and in accordance with applicable law and regulations in processing 
the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant does not meet his burden of proving an 
error or injustice.   
 
The applicant’s record was reviewed by the DRB and the DRB recommended an 
upgrade  in  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3G. 
  However,  the 
Commandant  disapproved 
the  applicant’s 
that 
reenlistment code remain unchanged . . .    
 
The evidence the applicant presents  . . . is insufficient in substance to substantiate 
that there was an error in his diagnosis of a personality disorder . . .  At the time of 

the  findings  and  directed 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  January  16,  2009,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant. 
 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

his evaluation with the military psychologist and psychiatrist the applicant met the 
diagnostic criteria for personality disorder.  The assignment of the SPD code of 
JFX  is  the  appropriate  code  given  the  applicant’s  diagnosis  and  administrative 
processing.  The SPD code handbook [is] for internal use “official use only” and 
is not releasable to outside agencies or persons under 5. U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).  The 
applicant  alleges  that  his  DD214  indicates  he  was  separated  for  personality 
disorder,  yet  the  SPD  code  system  is  intended  to  protect  privacy  of  individuals 
with regards to the circumstances surrounding their discharge and to protect the 
integrity  of  the  honorable  discharge.    The  applicant  has  not  substantiated  any 
prejudice  or  inappropriate  disclosure  by  the  Coast  Guard  [in]  this  regard.   The 
applicant does not meet his burden of proving error or injustice.   

Article  12.B.16  provides  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  personality 

disorders as listed in the Medical Manual. 
   
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 
 
Chapter  5.B.2.  lists  the  following  as  personality  disorders:    Paranoid,  Schizoid, 
Schizotypal,  Obsessive  Compulsive,  Histrionic,  Dependent,  Antisocial,  Narcissistic,  Avoidant, 
Borderline, and Personality disorder NOS (includes Passive-aggressive). 
 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 
 
According  to  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook  the  JFX  separation 
code  means  that  an  involuntary  discharge  is  directed  when  a  personality  disorder  exists,  not 
amounting  to  a  disability,  which  potentially  interferes  with  assignment  to  or  performance  of 
duty.  It also authorizes the assignment of an RE-3G or an RE-4 reenlistment code with the JFX 
separation code.   
 

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.   

1. 

 

 
3.  The applicant asked this Board to correct his record by removing personality disorder 
as  the  narrative  reason  for  his  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard.  In  support  of  his  request,  he 
submitted  a  letter  consisting  of  two  lines  from  his  current  psychiatrist  that  the  applicant  is  in 
treatment but does not have a personality disorder.  This letter is insufficient to prove that the 
applicant  did  not  have  a  personality  disorder  in  2003  as  diagnosed  by  the  military  doctors.    
Moreover, the letter from the applicant’s civilian psychiatrist fails to state how that psychiatrist 
reached the conclusion that the applicant does not currently suffer with a personality disorder.  
The applicant has failed to prove that he did not have a personality disorder at the time of his 
discharge or that that diagnosis was in error or unjust.   

 
4.  Pursuant to Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual, a personality disorder may cause 
a member to be unsuitable for continued military service and is a valid ground on which to base a 
discharge.  The Board notes that the applicant’s DD Form 214 documenting his separation from 
the  Coast  Guard  states  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    Article 
1.D.28. of COMDTINST M1900.4.D. states that unsuitability is to be entered as the narrative 
reason for separation for individuals discharged under Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual.  
Therefore, personality disorder was a proper basis for discharge in this case and the DD Form 
214 properly records unsuitability as the reason for discharge.  

2.  The application was timely.  An applicant has fifteen years from the date of discharge 
to apply to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant 
was  required  to  exhaust  his  administrative  remedies  by  applying  to  the  DRB  before  filing  an 
application with the Board.  See 33 CFR § 52.13.  According to Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 
F. 3d. 738 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the BCMR’s three-year statute of limitations begins to run at the 
conclusion  of  DRB  proceedings  for  an  applicant  who  is  required  to  exhaust  administrative 
remedies.   The applicant applied to the DRB approximately three years after his discharge, and 
the  DRB  issued  a  final  decision  on  November  29,  2006.    Therefore,  the  applicant's  BCMR 
application, received by the Board on August 30, 2007, was timely. 

  
5.    In  addition,  according  to  SPD  Handbook,  JFX  is  the  correct  separation  code  for  a 
member involuntarily discharged due to a personality disorder.  However, the SPD Handbook 
authorizes either an RE-3G (eligible for reenlistment with a waiver) or an RE-4 (not eligible to 
reenlist)  reenlistment  code  with  the  JFX  separation  code.    The  applicant  was  given  the  RE-4 
reenlistment code despite the fact that he had no non-judicial punishments or negative page 7s 
during his approximately 10 months of Coast Guard service.   The applicant’s current request 
does not challenge his reenlistment code and the Board will not render a decision on it at this 
time, but will allow the  applicant six months from the date of this final  decision to request  a 
review of his reenlistment code.  The applicant is reminded that if he submits a new application 
challenging the reenlistment code, he has the burden of proving that the RE-4 reenlistment code 
is in error or unjust.     

 
6.  Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to the relief on the request currently before 
the Board.  However, the applicant is allowed six months from the date of the final decision in 
this case to file a new application challenging the correctness of his reenlistment code.  
 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

______________________________  
 Donna M. Bivona 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his 
military record is denied.  However, he is granted six months from the date of this final decision 
to file a new application challenging the correctness of his RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________ 
 Diane L. Donley  

______________________________ 
 Richard Walter