DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-061 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 
applicant’s  completed  application  on  December  5,  2008,  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  March  26,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to change her separation and reenlistment codes to ones 
that allow her to reenter the military.    Her military record indicates that she enlisted in the active 
duty Coast Guard on June 18, 1991 and was discharged on July 26, 1991. She was honorably 
discharged by reason of unsuitability, with a JMB (personality disorder) separation code and an 
RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code.    
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  separation  and  reenlistment  codes  are  unfair  and  unjust 
because at the time she was under the impression that she was being discharged because of an 
injury to her arm and shoulder. She also alleged that she was not informed of her rights at the 
time of discharge. She denied that she had a personality disorder.  
 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error  until  October  1,  2008, 
when she tried to join the Reserve and to obtain federal employment.  “I was made aware that 
this  rating  is  considered  really  bad  and  could  eliminate  me  from  top  clearances  in  the 
government.”   She stated that she plans to go to law school and the codes could prevent her from 
obtaining  a  law  license.    She  stated  that  because  she  received  an  honorable  discharge  she 
believes should not have received a bad reentry code.   

 

 

Pertinent Documents in the applicant’s Medical Record1 
 

 

On July 8, 1991, the applicant was referred for a psychiatric evaluation due to her fear of 
water.  On July 8, 1991, a psychologist diagnosed the applicant with hydrophobia and borderline 
personality disorder that should be ruled out.  On July 9, 1991, she was given psychological tests 
to assist in making a firm diagnosis of her condition.   
 
On July 23, 1991, the applicant was diagnosed with a severe adjustment disorder and a 
 
borderline personality disorder.  The psychologist noted that the applicant’s overall psychological 
condition had deteriorated and that she would not be a reliable active duty member of the Coast 
Guard,  even  if  she  were  to  complete  boot  camp.    He  recommended  that  the  applicant  be 
processed for discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
following recommendation: 
 

On  July  23,  1991,  a  medical  board  convened  in  the  applicant’s  case  and  made  the 

1.  The [applicant] does not meet the minimum standard for enlistment and retention in 
the U.S. Coast Guard as prescribed in Section 5-B-16.c. and 5-B-18.a. of COMDTINST 
M6000.1B. 
 
2.  The disqualifying condition, although temporarily aggravated by basic training, has 
not caused a physical disability due to a period of active military service. 
 
3.  Disclosure to the [applicant] of information relative to her physical condition would 
not adversely affect [her] physical or mental health. 
 
4.    It  is  recommended  that  the  [applicant]  be  separated  from  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard  in 
accordance with Article 12-B-16 of COMDTINST M1000.6A. 
 
5.  It is recommended that no waiver be granted. 
 
6.  An escort for the [applicant] to her home of record will not be required.   

 

On July 25, 1991, the applicant signed a written statement informing her that she  was 
being discharged because of her diagnosed severe adjustment disorder and borderline personality 
disorder.  She acknowledged with her signature that she could make a statement regarding the 
proposed discharge and that any such statement would be forwarded to the commanding officer 
(CO) for consideration.  She stated that she did not desire to submit a written statement.  The 
applicant’s signature was witnessed by another individual.   
 
 
The applicant’s discharge was approved and she was discharged from the Coast Guard 
with an honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder, with a JMB 
separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 
                                                 
1   The applicant’s military record indicated that her Coast Guard medical file had been sent to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.  The Board obtained a copy of her Coast Guard medical record.   

b. The  applicant’s  record  received  from  the  National  Personnel  Records  Center 
does  not  contain  details  relative  to  her  discharge  processing.    The  applicant 
contends that she was under the impression that she was being discharged due to 
injuries to her leg and shoulder.  However, there is no documentation in her record 
to support this nor has the applicant provided any support for this assertion.  The 
applicant was aware of the narrative reason for discharge of unsuitability at the 
time of discharge when she signed her DD-214.   
 
c.  Based  upon  a  review  of  the  record  and  the  information  contained  in  the 
applicant’s  BCMR  application,  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  any  error  or 
injustice  with  regards  to  her  discharge  or  her  DD-214.    In  the  absence  of 
supporting documentation to the contrary and based upon the limited information 
contained in the record, the Coast Guard was presumptively correct with regards 
to the applicant’s discharge.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 11, 2009, 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 Service Center (PSC) 
as the advisory opinion. 
 
PSC noted that the application was not timely and that the applicant had not provided any 
 
justification for not filing her application sooner.  With respect to the merits, the PSC stated the 
following:   
 

On January 14, 2010, the BCMR received the applicant’s reply to the advisory opinion.  
She submitted documents showing that on July 4, 1991, she was treated for a pulled muscle in 
her left thigh (no evidence of any further treatment for the left thigh).  On July 19, 1991, she was 
treated for a deltoid strain.  A medical entry dated July 25, 1991, shows that the deltoid strain had 
resolved and that processing her for discharge should continue.2  The applicant asserted that the 
medical documentation that she submitted verifies that she was informed that her discharged was 
due to the injury to her arm and shoulder.   
 
The applicant stated that she received an honorable discharge but the issue is the reentry 
 
code, which she alleges  hinders her  career path.   She stated, “The reason  I  am appealing this 
decision years later is because it was just shown to me that this code was a serious charge against 
my character.”  She also stated that she was not aware of the actual meaning of the reentry code 
at the time of her discharge.  She stated that she is not trying to reenter the Coast Guard but to 
remove any blemish to her character that might interfere with her obtaining employment.    
 
 

                                                 
2   The applicant was recommended for discharge due to personality disorder on July 23, 1991. 

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 and 
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 fourteen years beyond the statute of limitations.   The applicant claimed 
that she did not discover the alleged error until October 1, 2008, when she was told the meaning 
of the JMB separation code and the RE-4 reenlistment code.  However, the applicant knew in 
1991 that he was being discharged by reason of unsuitability due because it is listed on her DD 
214.  In addition, her DD 214, which he signed, contains the RE-4 reenlistment code.  Therefore, 
the applicant knew or should have known of the alleged error at the time of her discharge from 
the Coast Guard.   
 

3.      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.  The applicant stated that the Board should consider her application in the interest of 
justice because she just recently learned the meaning of the separation and reenlistment codes 
and that the codes are a blemish on her character.  While the applicant may not have known the 
meaning of the codes in 1991, she knew that she was discharged due to a personality disorder 
and  an  adjustment  disorder  because  she  signed  the  document  acknowledging  this  fact.    In 
addition,  the  DD  214  referenced  the  section  of  the  Personnel  Manual  under  which  she  was 
discharged.    With  the  information  in  her  medical  record  and  on  her  DD  214,  she  could  have 
discovered the meaning of the JMB separation code and the RE-4 reenlistment code, if she had 
been more diligent in seeking an explanation as to their meaning.  Accordingly, the Board is not 
persuaded to waive the statute of limitations because the applicant alleges that she only recently 
discovered the meaning of the JMB separation code and the RE-4 reenlistment code.    

 
5.    Nor  is  the  Board  persuaded  to  waive  the  statute  based  on  a  cursory  review  of  the 
merits because the applicant is not likely to prevail on her claim.   In this regard, the Board notes 
that the applicant was advised of the reason for her discharge and provided the opportunity to 
make a statement as required by the Personnel Manual.     She acknowledged that she was being 
discharged by reason of a personality disorder and waived her right to make a statement in her 
own  behalf.    She  has  presented  no  evidence  that  her  personality  disorder  diagnosis  was 
erroneous.  The applicant’s allegation that she was told that she was discharged due to her arm 
and shoulder injury is without merit. She has presented no evidence that she was ever told that 
she was being discharged due to an arm and shoulder injury, and there is no medical evidence in 
the record that her deltoid strain was ever considered unfitting for military service.  As a matter 
of fact, a July 25, 1991 medical entry reported the applicant’s deltoid strain/overuse syndrome as 
resolved.  Moreover, when provided with the opportunity to write a statement wherein she could 
have asserted her alleged belief that she thought she was being discharged due to an injury, she 
opted to waive her right to make a written statement. Accordingly, the Board finds that the JMB 
(personality disorder) separation code is correct.   
 

6.    COMDTINST  M1900.4B.  authorized  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  or  an  RE-3G  if 
approved  by  the  Commandant.  The  CO,  who  had  authority  to  discharge  the  applicant  under 
Article 12.B.16.e. of the Personnel Manual, approved the RE-4 separation code perhaps  because 
the  medical  board  did  not  recommend  a  waiver  for  the  applicant.    The  RE-4  would  bar  any 
attempt by the applicant to enlist in the future.   The assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code 
for the applicant’s unsuitability personality disorder discharge was appropriate and in accordance 
with COMDTINST M1900.4B.  
 

7.  Therefore the Board finds that due to the length of the delay, the lack of a persuasive 
reason for not filing her application sooner, and the lack of probable success on the merits of her 
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.   

 
8. 

 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

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

ORDER 

 

  

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

record is denied.