DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-035 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX  
   

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 after receiving the 
completed application on December 1, 2008, and subsequently drafted 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 September 24, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his RE-4 (not eligible 

 
 
to reenlist) reenlistment code to at least an RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment with waiver).    
 

The applicant’s military record indicates that he enlisted in the Coast Guard on Septem-
ber 3, 2002. He was honorably discharged on April 16, 2004, by reason of unsuitability, with a 
JFX (personality disorder) separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code.    

 
The applicant alleged that he does not have a personality disorder and believes that he is 
suited for military service.  In a communication to his congressman, the applicant stated that he 
needed to get his reentry code changed from RE-4 to RE-3 or better so that he can reenlist in the 
service.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
 
The  applicant  exhausted  his  administrative  remedies  by  filing  an  application  with  the 
 
DRB seeking the same relief as requested before this Board.  Four of the five members of the 
DRB voted to change the applicant’s reenlistment code to RE-3G (eligible for reenlistment with 
waiver)  and  the  reason  for  his  separation  from  unsuitability  to  personality  disorder.  The  Vice 
Commandant disapproved the DRB’s recommendations, but changed the separation code from 
JFX  (personality  disorder)  to  JNC  (unacceptable  conduct).    The  Vice  Commandant  did  not 

provide a reason for disapproving the recommendations of the DRB or for her decision to change 
the separation code to JNC.   
 
 
Although  disapproved  by  the  Vice  Commandant,  the  DRB  stated  the  following  with 
respect to its recommendation to change the reason for the applicant’s separation to personality 
disorder and the reenlistment code to RE-3G: 
 

The applicant clearly had episodes of non-performance and integrity issues during 
his  short  Coast  Guard  career  which  should  have  been  handled  by  performance 
probation  .  .  .  For  reasons  unclear  to  the  [DRB],  the  applicant  was  referred  to 
Great Lakes Naval Medical Center in January 2004 for a psychiatric evaluation . . 
. At  Great  Lakes  he  was  diagnosed  with Adult Antisocial/Narcissistic  traits  but 
there  was  ‘insufficient  info  to  [diagnose]  personality  [disorder]”  .  .  .  In  March 
2004,  the  applicant  was  referred  .  .  .  for  a  second  psychiatric  evaluation.   This 
evaluation diagnosed the applicant with “narcissistic, passive aggressive and anti-
social character traits” and supported an administrative discharge if the command 
determined his behavior significantly impacted his job performance in a negative 
way.   
 
Since  departing  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  has  held  two  jobs  and  each 
employer provided positive endorsements.  Additionally, at his own expense the 
applicant underwent a third psychiatric evaluation.  This evaluation concluded the 
applicant  “shows  clinically  insignificant  signs  of  Antisocial  or  Narcissistic 
Personality Patterns as reportedly purported to be present by the aforementioned 
psychologist.” 
 
Because the applicant received a diagnosis of a personality disorder, the [DRB] 
felt  that  the  discharge  was  carried  out  in  accordance  with  Coast  Guard  policy.  
However, the [DRB] believes that the discharge was inequitable because the unit 
pursued  a  discharge  for  personality  disorder  when  similar  cases  are  handled  as 
discharges for unsatisfactory performance. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on September 3, 2002.   On February 9, 2004, 
the applicant’s officer in charge (OIC) informed the applicant that the OIC had initiated action to 
honorably  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard  under Article  12.B.9.  (unsatisfactory 
performers) and Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual.  The OIC told the applicant that he had lost 
trust in his integrity, which resulted in the applicant losing his qualifications to perform the most 
basic  jobs  at  the  unit.   The  OIC  also  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been  diagnosed  by  a  Navy 
psychiatrist as having anti-social and narcissistic traits.    The OIC 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 OIC’s recommendation.   
 
 
 On  February  13,  2004,  the  OIC,  through  the  commanding  officer  (CO),  requested 
permission  from  the  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.  However, the OIC informed CGPC of the following: 
 

Within  the  past  ten  months  [the  applicant]  has  demonstrated  apathy  toward 
command  policies,  procedures,  and  personnel  attached  to  this  unit.    Members 
from E2 through my E7 (XPO) all came forward and stated that [the applicant] 
has openly repeatedly lied to them, for reasons I originally attributed to youthful 
insecurity  and  a  need  to  fit  in.   Subsequently,  due  to  a  complete  breakdown  of 
trust  in  his  integrity  his  qualification  as  a  communication  watchstander  was 
revoked.  He was referred to Great Lakes Naval Mental Health, for an evaluation 
for continued military service, where narcissistic and anti-social traits were noted.  
He has become a burden on his shipmates and command and discharge is in the 
best interest of the member and the Coast Guard.   
 
The letter from the OIC noted that the applicant had been counseled several times.   

 
 

On April 18, 2003, the applicant was counseled on an administrative remarks page (page 
7) for failure to follow standing orders that personal phone calls be limited to no more than 10 
minutes. 
 

On  October  7,  2003,  the  applicant  was  counseled  about  his  failure  to  follow  standing 
orders to plot the boat’s position while underway.  When asked why he did not plot the boat’s 
position, he replied “I just feel lazy today.”   

 
On  October  8,  2003,  a  negative  counseling  entry  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record 
about his behavior and attitude and their impact on the good order and discipline of the unit.  The 
page 7 noted that the applicant had accused members of stealing two of his items when those 
items  were  in  his  possession.    The  page  7  also  noted  that  the  applicant  had  instigated  and 
exaggerated personal differences between section personnel to purposely cause dissent within the 
unit.    The  applicant  was  counseled  that  his  actions  were  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  Coast 
Guard’s core values and that his actions had brought the ethics and standards of the entire unit 
into question.  The page 7 further noted that the applicant had been counseled by the XPO on 
several occasions. 

 
The OIC submitted a copy of a three and one-half page email from the applicant’s XPO 
to  his  senior  chief  and  OIC,  documenting  the  written  and  verbal  counseling  provided  to  the 
applicant.   The OIC also submitted a copy of the February 4, 2004 medical consultation and a 
copy of the applicant’s enlisted employee review for marking period ending January 31, 2004.  
The review showed some average marks, but it also contained several poor and below average 
marks and an unsatisfactory mark in conduct.  The following comment was written with regard 
to the applicant’s marks: 
 

The applicant is capable of producing good work.  His apparent effort to cause 
conflict among my crew has outweighed his efforts to stand a proper and reliable 
watch.    He  shows  continuous  examples  of  unreliability  to  uphold  the  high 
standards of ethical behavior we want in our sailors.  There is now such a high 

level  of  lack  of  trust  and  honesty  that  this  watchstanding  qual[ifications]  have 
been rescinded.  He must learn to respect and honor his fellow sailors as much as 
he respects and values himself.  Without these values, he is alone and is his only 
captain and crew on his own ship without a team of trustworthy fellow sailors to 
work with him.   

On February 9, 2004, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed discharge, 

 
 
indicated that he would attach a statement in his behalf, and objected to the discharge.  
 

On February 13, 2004, the applicant submitted his written statement denying that he had 
narcissistic and anti-social personality traits.  He claimed that his problems began with a rumor 
that he was going to place a chief petty officer on report.  He also stated that on two occasions 
when he was upset, he accused someone in the unit of stealing some of his personal property. He 
also stated that a Navy psychiatrist advised him that he had made some mistakes in his career for 
which he should be punished but not discharged.  He requested a second chance under the Coast 
Guard’s  second  chance  policy,  noting  some  of  the  good  work  he  had  done  since  entering  the 
Coast Guard. 
 
 
On March 11, 2004, the applicant’s CO agreed with the OIC that the applicant should be 
discharged  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder.    The  CO  stated  that  the 
applicant’s request for a second chance is not in the best interest of the Coast Guard.  “[T]he 
second chance program was never intended to be applied in the context of allowing people with 
disqualifying personality disorders to be retained on active duty.” 
 
 
applicant should be discharged due to a personality disorder. 
 

On  March  16,  2004,  the  Commander,  Ninth  Coast  Guard  District  agreed  that  the 

On March 19, 2004, CGPC approved the applicant’s discharge by reason of unsuitability 

due to a personality disorder with a JFX separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code.    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 10, 2009, 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: 
 

A review of the applicant’s record indicates that he was properly discharged due 
to an assigned diagnosis of a personality disorder.  The applicant has a pattern of 
difficulty  conforming  to  military  standards  and  two  separate  mental  health 
evaluations,  the  second  of  which  was  performed  by  military  psychiatrist  and 
confirmed a diagnosis of personality disorder.  The Coast Guard complied with 
policy . . . for processing the applicant’s discharge. 
 
The applicant petitioned the DRB to have his reenlistment code upgraded to allow 
him to reenlist.  The DRB recommended a change to the reenlistment code and 
narrative  reason.    The  Vice  Commandant  did  not  approve  the  findings  of  the 

DRB.  However, she did approve a change to the [separation code) from JFX to 
JNC (unacceptable conduct).  The only authorized reenlistment code for JFX and 
JNC is RE-4 . . .  therefore in accordance with policy there is no basis to change 
the applicant’s reenlistment code.   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On June 3, 2009, the BCMR received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 
 
Guard.  The applicant stated that getting his reenlistment code upgraded is his highest priority.  
He stated that the media are reporting that the military is now recruiting individuals convicted of 
felonies.  He argued that if the military is recruiting individuals who have broken the law then 
why not him because his record has been spotless since his 18th birthday.   
 
 
The package the applicant submitted in response to the advisory opinion was the one he 
submitted  to  the  DRB.    In  it,  he  denied  that  he  had  a  personality  disorder  and  submitted  the 
psychological evaluation performed on March 31, 2006 after his discharge.    The psychological 
report stated the following in pertinent part: 
 

[The  applicant]  shows  clinically  insignificant  signs  of  antisocial  or  narcissistic 
personality patterns as reportedly purported to be present by [military psycholo-
gists].  No indication of severe personality pathology is present. . . [T]here was no 
indication  of  the  presence  of  three  severe  clinical  syndromes  (thought  disorder, 
major depression, and/or delusional disorder).   

 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  copies  of  awards  he  received  in  high  school,  reference 
letters  from  his  employers,  and  some  documents  from  his  service  record.   The  applicant  also 
submitted a copy of his statement that responded to the three and one-half page email that his 
XPO had written prior to his discharge.  He admitted that some of the entries were true, some 
were false, and explained others.   
 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
The Board provided the Coast Guard with a copy of the applicant’s reply to their views 
for a supplemental advisory opinion.  The Coast Guard did not submit a supplemental advisory 
opinion.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook 
 
 
According  to  the  SPD  Handbook,  the  JNC  separation  code  means  that  an  involuntary 
discharge is directed “when a member performs acts of unacceptable conduct (i.e. moral and/or 
professional dereliction) not otherwise listed.”  It also authorizes the assignment of only an RE-4 
reenlistment code with the JNC 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 

1. 

 

10 of the United States Code.   

 
2.  The application was timely.  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.  The Discharge Review Board DRB has a fifteen year statute of limitations.  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 on January 18, 2006 and 
the  DRB  issued  a  final  decision  on  September  25,  2006.    Therefore,  the  applicant's  BCMR 
application, received by the Board on November 18, 2008 was timely. 

 
3.  In 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of 
unsuitability, with a JFX (personality disorder) separation code, and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
On  his  application  before  this  Board,  the  applicant  asked  the  BCMR  to  correct  his  record  by 
upgrading his RE-4 reenlistment code to RE-3 or higher so that he can enlist in another branch of 
the military.  He alleged that he does not have a personality disorder and is suited to serve in the 
military.   

 
4.  Although, the DRB recommended changing the narrative reason for the applicant’s 
discharge from unsuitability to personality disorder and upgrading the reenlistment code to RE-
3G,  the  Vice  Commandant,  without  comment,  disapproved  the  DRB’s  recommendation,  but 
changed  the  separation  code  to  JNC  (unacceptable  conduct).    Unacceptable  conduct  like 
personality  disorder  is  one  of  a  number  of  bases  for  an  unsuitability  discharge  under  Article 
12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual according to the SPD Handbook.   

 
5.  The applicant’s challenge to his discharge by reason of personality disorder has been 
rendered moot because the Vice Commandant’s final action on his DRB application changed the 
separation code, and therefore, the reason for his separation from JFX (personality disorder) to 
JNC  (unacceptable  conduct).    In  accordance,  with  the  Vice  Commandant’s  decision,  the 
applicant’s  DD  214  was  corrected  through  the  issuance  of  a  DD  215  showing  JNC  as  the 
separation code.  According to the SPD Handbook, the authority for assigning a JNC separation 
code is Article 12.B.16. (unsuitability) of the Personnel Manual and the code is given for “acts of 
unacceptable conduct (i.e. moral and/or professional dereliction) not otherwise listed.”  
 
 
6.    The  applicant  does  not  argue  that  the  newly  assigned  JNC  separation  code  is 
erroneous under the circumstances of his case.  Moreover, there is evidence in the record that the 
applicant falsely accused members of his unit of stealing his personal property when the property 
was always in his possession.  There is also evidence that the applicant engaged in professional 
dereliction  by  refusing  to  plot  the  boat’s  course  while  underway,  that  he  caused  divisiveness 

among the crew by instigating conflict, and that his watchstanding qualifications were removed 
due to the crew’s lack of trust in him.  Additionally, the OIC stated that he had become a burden 
to his crew members and the unit.    
 

7.  The JNC separation code is supported by the record and the Board finds no basis on 
which  to  change  it.      Pursuant  to  the  SPD  Handbook,  only  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  to  reenlist) 
reenlistment code is authorized with the JNC separation code.   According to Article 1.D.28. of 
COMDTINST M1900.4.D., the general  unsuitability category is to be entered as the narrative 
reason  for  separation  on  the  DD  214,  rather  than  the  specific  reason.    Neither  personality 
disorder nor unacceptable conduct is written on the applicant’s DD 214 or DD 215.   

 
8.    Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because he has failed to prove 

an error or injustice with respect to his separation and reenlistment code. 
 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal