DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-202 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXX XX XXXXXXXX  
   

 

 
 

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  requested  the  “reinstatement  of  [his]  rank,  pay,  schooling,  sea  time, 

 
 
training, and [Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)] benefits.”         
 

The military record indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 
25,  1982,  at  the  age  of  17.  He  was  honorably  discharged  on  August  1,  1984,  by  reason  of 
unsuitability,  with  a  JMB  (personality  disorder)  separation  code  and  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  to 
reenlist) reenlistment code.  He had served one year, nine months, and seven days on active duty. 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  has  a  number  of  medical  problems  that  resulted  from  his 
 
exposure to unhealthy environmental, chemical, and noise conditions while on active duty.   He 
stated that has applied for DVA benefits and has been told that he is not eligible for them because 
he did not serve on active duty for 24 months.  He alleged that he was discharged unjustly from 
the Coast Guard two months before he would have become eligible for DVA benefits.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

SUMMARY OF MILITARY RECORD 

 

On March 4, 1984, the Officer of the Deck (OOD) placed an administrative remarks page 
(page  7)1  in  the  applicant’s  record  documenting  that  the  applicant  told  the  OOD  that  he  had 
swallowed pills mixed  with alcohol.  When the OOD told the applicant that the hospital would 
probably pump his stomach, the applicant “decided that he was not feeling quite that bad[l]y and 
would try getting some fresh air and sleeping off the ill feeling.” The OOD stated that the next 
day the applicant appeared to be fine. 
 

On March 12, 1984, the applicant was counseled on a page 7 about not performing his 

assigned duties.  The page 7 stated:   
 

You  have  been  an  unproductive  member  of  the  crew  since  reporting  aboard 
approximately four months ago.  You have become a burden in the engineering 
department  by  not  doing  your  share  of  the  work  and  requiring  constant 
supervision for all tasks.  You have not accepted criticism, are not motivated to do 
anything Coast Guard oriented, show little pride in the unit or the Coast Guard, 
and can not be counted on in any situation.   
 
[Y]ou have been counseled many times in the past by your chief, division officer 
and myself with little results.  You are directed to improve your attitude, become 
motivated, show initiative, in short, to become a productive member of the team   
. . .   
On April 16, 1984, the applicant was punished at captain’s mast with 20 days of extra 
duties for disobeying a lawful order and for using disrespectful language toward his superior, a 
master-at-arms.    
 

On May 24, 1984, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) requested that the applicant 

receive a 30-day temporary duty assignment because he had acquired contact dermatitis.   
 

On  June  21,  1984,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  captain’s  masts  for  failing  to  keep  a 

medical appointment.  He was punished with a reduction in rate to pay grade E-1. 
 

On July 10, 1984, the CO informed the applicant that the CO intended to recommend that 
the applicant be honorably discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability due to 
personality disorder.  The CO stated that the applicant’s unsuitability was manifested through his 
inability  to  respond  to  counseling,  his  poor  performance,  his  substandard  conduct,  his  lack  of 
potential for advancement, and his improbable completion of enlistment.   
 

On July 10, 1984, the applicant acknowledged the proposed discharge and did not object 
to  it.      He  signed  a  statement  that  he  agreed  with  the  discharge  and  requested  an  honorable 
discharge.   
                                                 
1  An  administrative  remarks  page  provides  a  means  of  recording  miscellaneous  entries,  which  are  not  recorded 
elsewhere in a Personnel Data Record (PDR).  Administrative Remarks entries are made to document counseling or 
to record any other information required by current directives, or considered to be of historical value.  Section 10.A. 
of the Pay and Personnel Manual (HIRSICINST M1000.6A). 

In  a  July  25,  1984  message  to  the  commandant,  the  CO  recommended  that  the 
Commandant approve the applicant’s discharge by reason of unsuitability due to a personality 
disorder.  The CO wrote that the applicant had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist with a passive-
aggressive personality disorder and had been recommended for discharge from the Coast Guard.  
The CO stated that the applicant was a marginal performer and had not responded to counseling.   
The  CO  further  noted  that  the  applicant  was  unable  to  adapt  to  the  requirements  of  military 
service.   
 

On July 28, 1984, the Commandant directed that the applicant be discharged from the 
Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability.  The Commandant further directed that the applicant be 
assigned separation code JMB (personality disorder).   
 

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.   The JAG asked 
that  the  Board  accept  the  comments  from  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) as the advisory opinion.  CGPC noted that the application was not timely and that the 
applicant  had  not  provided  any  justification  for  not  filing  his  application  sooner.    CGPC  also 
commented  on  the  merits  of  the  application  should  the  Board  decide  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations.  In this regard, CGPC stated the following: 
 

The applicant was processed for discharge due to unsuitability due to diagnosis of 
a  personality  disorder.    On  July  10,  1984,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  by  a 
psychiatrist with passive-aggressive personality disorder  . . .  The applicant was 
notified of the intent to discharge him for unsuitability, and the applicant did not 
make a statement, and patently agreed with the discharge recommendation  . . .  In 
addition to his personality disorder, the applicant’s behavior as evidenced by two 
commanding  officer’s  NJPs    .  .  .  [is]  evidence  [of]  the  applicant’s  unsuitability 
and  most  likely  precipitated  [his]  mental  health  evaluation.    The  applicant  was 
properly processed for discharge  . . .  for unsuitability.    
 
The applicant claims that he was improperly denied the right to veterans benefits, 
however,  there  is  nothing  in  the  record  nor  has  the  applicant  provided  any 
evidence to substantiate any unjust treatment.     

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On  January  16,  2008,  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. 
 
 
 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6) 
 

disorders as listed in the Medical Manual. 
   
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 

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

Chapter  5.B.2.  lists  the  following  as  personality  disorders:    Paranoid,  Schizoid, 
Schizotypal,  Obsessive  Compulsive,  Histrionic,  Dependent,  Antisocial,  Narcissistic,  Avoidant, 
Borderline, Passive-aggressive, and Personality disorder NOS. 
 
Commandant  Instruction  (COMDTINST)  M1900.4B  (Instruction  for  the  Preparation  and 
Distribution of the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214 
 
 
Chapter 2 (Separation Program Designators) of COMDTINST M1900.4B authorized an 
RE-4 reenlistment code with the JMB separation code.  This provisions states that a RE-3G may 
be assigned only when authorized by the Commandant.   
 

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 

1. 

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  applicant  discovered  or  should 
have  discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.      This  application  was 
submitted  approximately  twenty  years  beyond  the  statute  of  limitations.      The  applicant 
acknowledged that he discovered the alleged error on August 1, 1984.     He stated that it is in the 
interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  because  the  Coast  Guard  is  now  under  a 
different department and he can “now . . . appeal everything.”   However, the applicant knew in 
1984 that he was being discharged by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  In 
addition, his DD form 214, which he signed, shows that at the time of his discharge, he had less 
than  two  years  of  active  duty.        Therefore,  the  applicant  knew  or  should  have  known  of  the 
alleged error at the time of his discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 

3.      Although  the  applicant’s  explanation  for  not  filing  his  applicant  sooner  is  not 
persuasive,  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. 

 
4.  Based on a cursory review of the merits, the Board finds that the applicant is not likely 
to prevail on his claim.   The Board notes that the applicant’s request is for a correction to his 
record  to  show  that  he  served  on  active  duty  for  24  months  so  that  he  is  eligible  for  DVA 
benefits.  However, the applicant has not proven that he served on active duty in the Coast Guard 
for 24 months. His DD Form 214 shows that he served one year, nine months, and seven days on 
active duty. The applicant has submitted nothing to show this calculation to be incorrect.    

 
5.    Moreover,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  that  his  unsuitability  discharge  was  in 
error or unjust, and therefore, he is not entitled to have two additional months added to his active 
duty  time.    The  applicant  was  discharged  under  Article  12-B-16  of  the  Personnel  Manual  by 
reason of unsuitability due to a diagnosed personality disorder.  The applicant acknowledged the 
proposed discharge and offered no objection to it.  In addition, he signed a statement that he was 
in agreement with the discharge.   
 

6.    The  applicant  complained  that  several  of  his  current  illnesses  resulted  from  his 
exposure to unhealthy conditions while on active duty.   However, except for contact dermatitis 
and  personality  disorder,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  any  other  medical 
condition while on active duty.  The applicant was not entitled to physical disability processing 
by the Coast Guard for either of the two diagnosed conditions.  In this regard, Chapter 2 of the 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual states that a personality disorder is not a 
physical disability, and there is no medical evidence that the applicant’s contact dermatitis was 
unfitting for continued military service. 2  

 
7.  It is not clear what the applicant meant by requesting the reinstatement of his rank, 
pay, schooling, sea time, training, and DVA benefits.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 states that 
at the time of his discharge, the applicant had 1 year, six months, and 28 days of sea time, that he 
was a seaman  recruit (SR, pay  grade E-1), and  that he had  completed  Damage Control Team 
Training and Civil Rights Training.  The applicant has not proven that any of this information is 
incorrect.  Eligibility determination for DVA benefits is not within the purview of the Board.   

 
8.  Therefore, due to the length of the delay, the lack of a persuasive reason for not filing 
his application sooner, and the lack of probable success on the merits of his claim, it is not in the 
interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  in  this  case.    The  application  should  be 
denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   
 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

 
 
                                                 
2  Chapter 2.C.2.a. of the PDES Manual provides that the “sole standard” to be used in “making determinations of 
physical disability as a basis for retirement or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties of office, grade, 
rank or rating because of disease or injury incurred or aggravated through military service.” Chapter 2.C.2.f.i. makes 
it  clear  that  a  member  may  have  physical  impairments  ratable  by  the  DVA,  but  such  impairments  may  not 
necessarily render the member unfit for military duty.  

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Diane L. Donley 

 

 

 
 
 Richard Walter  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.