DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-042 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 December 18, 
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 September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  changing  the  reason  for  his 
discharge  from  unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder  to  something  more  suitable  and  by 
changing his RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code to RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment 
with waiver) so that he can reenlist in the Coast Guard.  However, because the Discharge Review 
Board (DRB) has granted the applicant certain relief, the only issue before the BCMR is whether 
the applicant’s RE-4 reenlistment code should be upgraded to RE-3.   
 

The applicant alleged that his command discriminated against him while he was in the 
Coast Guard.   He also stated that his father passed away while he was on active duty and he was 
never contacted by the Department of Veterans Affairs to pick up his father’s flag.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) Decision 
 

On November 7, 2007, the BCMR learned that the DRB directed that the applicant’s DD 
Form 214 be corrected to show “condition, not a disability, as the narrative reason for discharge, 
to show JFV (condition, not a disability) as the separation code, and to show Article 12.B.12. 
(convenience of the government) of the Personnel Manual as the separation authority.   The DRB 
noted that the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder, but rather with a specific 
phobia.   His DD Form 214 was corrected to reflect the changes directed by the DRB.   

 

The military record indicates that the applicant enlisted in the active duty Coast Guard on 
April 2, 2002. He was honorably discharged on January 20, 2006, by reason of unsuitability, with 
a JFX (personality disorder) separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code.  At the time of his 
discharge he had served three years, nine months, and nineteen days on active duty. 
 
 
On July 12, 2005, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation at the request of his 
command to determine if the applicant suffered from a mental condition that precluded him from 
dealing effectively with trauma, suicide, expired individuals, and rescue cases.  The psychiatrist 
diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a specific phobia (aversion/fear of exposure to corpses) 
that presented an occupational problem. The psychiatric report stated the following: 
 

 
On  November  30,  2007,  after  reviewing  the  DRB  decision,  the  BCMR  informed  the 
applicant that the DRB had corrected his DD Form 214 as discussed above and that the BCMR 
would only review the issue of his RE-4 reenlistment code.    
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

[The applicant] has been diagnosed with a mental disorder.  Specifically, he has 
demonstrated  a  marked  and  persistent  fear  that  is  excessive  and  is  cued  by  the 
presence/anticipation of being exposed to dead bodies in the course of his duties.  
Given the nature of the search and recovery mission that is inherent in the U.S. 
Coast Guard mission, such exposures are highly likely, particularly in the content 
of his current job at USCG Station [G].  He has demonstrated that exposure and 
anticipation  of  these  events  evokes  an  immediate  anxiety  response  and  he  has 
made multiple attempts to avoid such duties (including purposefully being late for 
boat movements).  This problem is so severe as to significantly interfere with his 
ability to perform his required duties.  In addition to the above, [the applicant] has 
exhibited problems with interpersonal interactions with co-workers and his chain 
of  command,  often  stemming  from  the  perception  that  he  is  not  being  treated 
fairly.    While  he  has  a  history  of  being  treated  for  depression  (related  to 
difficulties adjusting to USCG duties) there is no current evidence of depression 
or other emotional distress outside of the context of his work-related problems.   
 
Exposure-based  behavioral  treatments  are  effective  in  the  treatment  of  specific 
phobia; however, [the applicant] is not interested in participation in this course of 
treatment.  His phobia is likely to persist without this treatment.   
 
[The applicant] is able to distinguish between right and wrong, appreciating the 
possible consequences of his actions, and controlling his behavior.  From a mental 
health  standpoint  he  is  fully  accountable  for  his  actions  and  any  further 
misconduct should be dealt with administratively.   
 
Given the nature of [the applicant’s] mental disorder, he is not likely to perform 
effectively  in  situations  where  there  is  a  potential  for  exposure  to  corpses;  it  is 
unknown how he might respond to exposure to trauma cases where he would be 

required  to  render  aid  to  victims.    It  is  my  recommendation  that  you  consider 
transferring [the applicant] to a position that does not require him to be exposed to 
such  duties  (if  such  an  assignment  exists  within  the  USCG).    If  he  cannot  be 
reassigned,  it  is  my  opinion  the  he  is  not  suitable  for  continued  service  in  the 
USCG and administrative separation action should be initiated.   

 
 
On August 3, 2005, the commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant that the CO was 
recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unsuitability 
due to personality disorder: namely, a specific phobia that interfered with the applicant’s ability 
to perform his required duties.  The applicant was advised of his opportunity to make a statement 
and that his statement, if any, would be forwarded to the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel 
Command (CGPC).  

  
 
In a memorandum dated August 3, 2005, the CO recommended to the Commander, Coast 
Guard District Eleven, that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard due to a personality 
disorder.  The CO did not recommend the applicant’s retention and attached a summary of the 
applicant’s behavioral and disciplinary history.    The summary included the following: 
 

•  On July 5, 2004, the applicant received a page 7 for arriving late to morning clean ups. 

•  On November 8, 2004, the applicant received a page 7 for not completing his boat crew 

qualification guide. 

•  December 29, 2004 the applicant received a page 7 for failure to maintain accountability 

of SAR gear. 

•  On  January  5,  2005,  the  applicant  was  not  recommended  for  advancement  on  his 
employee review ending on September 30, 2004, because of his inability  to be a team 
player, because he was disrespectful, and because of his lack of boat crew qualification. 

•  On February 18, 2005, the applicant received a page 7 due to his failure to respond to a 

SAR case. 

•  On  March  14,  2005,  the  applicant  received  a  page  7  because  he  gave  conflicting 

explanations for why he missed a boat movement. 

•  On March 16, 2005, the applicant was punished at captain’s mast for being derelict in the 
performance of his duty by  not responding to a SAR case. His punishment included a 
reduction in rate, which the CO suspended. 

•  On  March  31,  2005,  the  applicant  was  not  recommended  for  advancement  on  his 

employee review ending March 31, 2005. 

•  On April 12, 2005, the applicant received a page 7 advising him that he was a candidate 

for reduction in rate by reason of incompetence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  On May 1, 2005, the applicant received a page 7 due to his failure to follow directions 

and pay attention to details. 

•  On  May  19,  2005,  the  applicant  received  a  page  7  placing  him  on  probation  due  to  a 

pattern of shirking his duties and responsibilities. 

•  On May 25, 2005, the suspension of the applicant’s reduction in rate given as punishment 

at the March 16, 2005 captain’s mast was vacated. 

On  August  8,  2005,  the  applicant  objected  to  the  discharge  and  submitted  the  following 

 

 

 

statement:  
 

 
 
On December 14, 2005, the Commander, Coast Guard District Eleven, recommended that 
CGPC discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard.  The Commander stated that the applicant 
had been considered for a second chance waiver, but one had not been granted.   
 

I respectfully write this letter to object [to] discharge.  The condition that exists is 
treatable,  and  through  time  can  be  resolved.    Two  other  individuals  that  were 
diagnosed  with  similar  symptoms  were  treated  and  retained.    They  were  both 
stationed  at  [G]  where  suicide  bridge-jumpers  are  a  constant  burden.    I  have 
requested a humanitarian transfer, which was denied.  I have had difficult times at 
Station  [G]  with  the  command,  and  respectfully  request  a  change  in  rate.    My 
marks  are  unsatisfactory  due  to  the  dilemmas  that  I  have  mentioned.      Please 
consider  giving  me  a  second  chance  because  before  receiving  orders  to  Station 
[G] these problems were not present.   

 
 
On  August  29,  2005,  in  response  to  the  applicant’s  statement,  the  CO  sent  a  further 
memorandum to CGPC, through the Commander, Coast Guard District Eleven, recommending 
the  applicant’s  discharge.   The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  was  not  the  first  person  from  the 
station to have problems associated with bridge jumpers and picking up corpses.  The CO further 
stated the following: 
 

Station [G] makes sure that all personnel who have phobias regarding corpses are 
treated by medical professionals, and then placed in positions that allow them to 
make  a  positive  contribution  to  Station  [G],  another  Sector  Station,  or  to  the 
Sector in general.  [The applicant] has not contributed in a positive manner since 
the situation occurred.  Sector San Francisco assisted [the applicant] by sending 
him  to  work  at  Station  Rio  Vista,  thus  removing  him  from  the  atmosphere  of 
retrieving corpses.  Station Rio Vista returned him back to Station [G] within a 
week  because  he  was  having  severe  difficulties  getting  along  with  Station  Rio 
Vista’s  crew.    He  was  then  reassigned  to  the  Sector  San  Francisco  Galley  and 
immediately and conveniently developed a phobia of sharp objects and stated that 
he felt he was going to hurt himself.  He was evaluated at Travis AFB for mental 
health and found fit for full duty.   

On December 20, 2005, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard 

 
and he was separated on January 20, 2006.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board upgrade the applicant’s reenlistment code from 
RE-4  to  RE-3G  (eligible  for  reenlistment  with  a  waiver),  as  recommended  by  CGPC  in  an 
attached memorandum.  The JAG adopted CGPC’s comments.   
 
 
Although  CGPC  recommended  that  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  be  changed,  he 
noted the applicant’s numerous failures to follow orders, as well as issues related to his phobia.  
In this regard CGPC stated the following:   
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

In  light  of  the  DRB’s  determination  to  change  the  SPD  code  and  narrative 
reason/authority for separation and in the interest of justice it is reasonable that 
the BCMR should address changing the RE code to RE-3G..  The RE-3 code does 
not bar reenlistment as does the RE-4.  Rather, the applicant needs to substantiate 
to  the  gaining  Service  that  the  medical  conditions  which  led  to  his  original 
discharge have been overcome.   
   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
In  May  2008,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  objection  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 
Guard.  He argued that based upon his service he should have been assigned a reenlistment code 
of RE-1 (eligible to reenlist).  In support of his contention, he submitted the following positive 
entries from his military record: 
 

•  On July 2, 2002, the applicant completed inport security watchstander job qualification 

requirements and was deemed qualified to stand inport security watches.     

•  On August 1, 2002, his performance and attitude during mess cook duty were noted as 

outstanding. 

•  On February 3, 2003, the CO documented that the applicant had completed the following 
damage  control  PQS:    advanced  damage  control,  advanced  shipboard  fire  fighting, 
advanced first aid/stretcher bearer, AFF station operator, and investigator.   

•  On November 28, 2003, the applicant received a page 7 thanking him for his tremendous 

contribution to the cutter’s Tailored Annual Cutter Training.   

•  On April  27,  2004,  the  applicant  received  a  page  7  commending  him  for  completing 

machinery technician “A” school and for serving as the class yeoman.   

 

 

•  On  May  7,  2004,  the  applicant  was  recognized  for  superior  performance  while 
representing the Coast Guard and Training Center Yorktown as a volunteer for the annual 
Hampton Roads USO Gala held on April 17, 2004. 

•  On August  6,  2004,  the  applicant  was  commended  for  his  outstanding  performance  of 
duty while the  engineering petty  officer and senior leadership of Station G were away 
conducting other business.   

•  May  23,  2005,  the  applicant  was  commended  for  his  outstanding  performance  of  duty 
during the month of May, in which he worked many extra hours and volunteered to assist 
other departments in preparation for the unit’s annual open house event.   

The  applicant  also  submitted  four  letters  from  previous  employers  who  attest  to  his 

 
 
excellent work ethic and character.   
 

1. 

 
2  

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 DRB has corrected the applicant’s DD 214 to show that he was discharged 
for  the  convenience  of  the  government  by  reason  of  a  condition,  not  a  disability,  with  a  JFV 
separation code.  Therefore, the only issue before the BCMR is whether the applicant’s request 
for an upgrade to his reenlistment code should be granted.  
 

3.  The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook is the authority for assigning 
reenlistment codes. In this regard, the SPD Handbook authorizes the assignment of an RE-3G or 
an RE-4 reenlistment code with the JFV separation code1.    The JAG has recommended that the 
applicant’s reenlistment code be upgraded to RE-3G (condition, not a disability), which is the 
code the applicant requested when he filed his BCMR application.  The Board agrees with the 
Coast Guard and will direct that the applicant’s reenlistment code be changed to RE-3G.  While 
the applicant’s negative behavior and performance would support an RE-4 reenlistment code, the 
Board  finds  that  the  RE-3G  is  the  more  appropriate  code  because  it  recognizes  that  the 
applicant’s  discharge  was  the  result  of  a  specific  phobia  condition  that  interfered  with  the 
performance of his duties and that it might have had some impact on his inability to adjust his 
behavior to the standards required by the Coast Guard. 
    

4.  The SPD Handbook does not authorize an RE-1 reenlistment code for a discharge by 
reason  of  condition,  not  a  disability,  that  interferes  with  the  performance  of  duty.    The 
applicant’s  military  record  clearly  established  that  he  suffered  from  a  specific  phobia  that 

                                                 
1   The JFV separation code is assigned upon the involuntary discharge of a member diagnosed with a condition, 
not a disability, that interferes with that member’s performance of duty.   

interfered with his performance of duty.  Therefore, he should not be allowed to reenlist unless 
he can show to the satisfaction of a military service that he longer suffers from this particular 
medical  problem.    Moreover,  an  RE-1  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  applicant’s  disciplinary 
and behavioral problems during the approximately last two years of his active service and with 
the recommendation of his command that he should not be retained in the Coast Guard.   

 
5.  Other than his allegation, the applicant has not submitted any proof that his command 

 
6. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  RE-1  should  be  denied,  but  his 

discriminated against him while on active duty.   

reenlistment code should be upgraded to RE-3G. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

record is granted as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

All other requests for relief are denied.   

 
Block 27 of his DD Form 214 shall be corrected to show RE-3G as his reenlistment code. 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  the  applicant  a  new  DD  Form  214  incorporating  the  changes 
directed by the DRB as well as that directed by this Board.  The following notation shall be made 
in block 18 of the new DD 214:  “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer