DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2009-106 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under 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 March 18, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c).  

 
This  final  decision,  dated  October  22,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 
 

 

 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  on  June  24,  1980,  after  less  than  four 
months of active duty,  asked the Board to correct the reenlistment code, separation code, and 
narrative reason for separation on his discharge form, DD 214.  His DD 214 shows that he was 
discharged for “Unsuitability – Personality Disorders,” under Article 12-B-16 of the Personnel 
Manual, with separation code JMB and reenlistment code RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist). 

 
The applicant stated that “[s]hortly after arriving in Petaluma [to attend “A” School fol-
lowing boot  camp], [he] learned that he  had contracted  genital herpes  from his longtime  girl-
friend,” who had been unfaithful.  He told his father, hoping for reassurance, but was instead 
rebuked and chastised.  His father told him that it was unlikely he could ever marry or have chil-
dren because he was “diseased.” 

 
The applicant stated that because he believed his father’s claim that his future was bleak, 
he went AWOL (absent without leave) on June 3, 1980, and took twelve over-the-counter sleep-
ing pills in a suicide attempt on June 5, 1980.  However, after taking the pills, he sought medical 
help and was admitted to a hospital.   

 
The Coast Guard quickly punished the applicant at mast, reduced him in rank to E-1, and 
counseled him about drug abuse, although “recreational drug use was not his problem.”  On June 
20, 1980, the applicant was notified that he would be discharged for unsuitability because of an 

alleged lack of adaptability.  No one warned him that he would be discharged because of alleged 
personality disorders, instead.  The applicant alleged that he was never diagnosed with a person-
ality  disorder.    Although  he  was  seen  by  a  psychiatrist  once,  that  doctor  never  completed  his 
evaluation.    Therefore,  the  applicant  argued,  the  narrative  reason  for  discharge  shown  on  his  
DD 214 is erroneous, contrary to regulation, and unfair.  In this regard, the applicant alleged that 
having the phrase “personality disorders” on his DD 214 has plagued him ever since and barred 
him from progressing in various different occupations. 

 
The applicant further alleged that contrary to his father’s prediction, he has lived a pro-
ductive and fruitful life.  He has been married for fifteen years and has two children.  He has 
earned two bachelor’s degrees and one master’s degree.  He is a registered nurse and works pri-
marily in the mental health field.   

 
The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his narrative reason for discharge to “Secretar-
ial Authority,” with a corresponding separation code, and to upgrade his reenlistment code from 
RE-4 to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist).  He argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to 
excuse  the  untimeliness of  his  application  because  he  has  suffered  stigmatization  and  lost  job 
opportunities as a result of the false diagnosis on his DD 214 for many years. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On February 1, 1980, the applicant underwent a physical examination pursuant to enlist-
ment on active duty.  He admitted on his Report of Medical History that he had contracted  a 
venereal disease, but denied suffering from any depression or excessive worry.  He was found fit 
for enlistment. 

 
On February 26, 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  He was 
18 years old.  Upon completing boot camp in Alameda, California, he advanced from seaman 
recruit (SR/E-1) to seaman apprentice (SA/E-2), and was sent to “A” School in Petaluma, Cali-
fornia, for further training.   

 
From June 3 through 5, 1980, the applicant was AWOL from “A” School.  On the eve-
ning of June 5, 1980, he was admitted to a civilian hospital.  The emergency room records show 
that  he  had  attempted  suicide  and  was  give  Ipecac  to  vomit  up  the  pills.    He  complained  of 
excessive  emotional  stress  and  said  he  wanted  to  kill  himself.    He  was  released  to  military 
authorities the next day. 

 
On  June  13,  1980,  the  applicant  was  taken  to  captain’s  mast  because  he  “had  been 
AWOL for a period of 3 days in connection with a misuse of drugs.”  The applicant was coun-
seled about drug abuse, reduced in rate to E-1, and referred to a psychiatrist for consultation on 
June 16, 1980. 

 
On June 20, 1980, the applicant received the following notification of discharge: 
 
1.  You are hereby advised that you are being discharged from the U.S. Coast Guard by reason of 
unsuitability in accordance with [Articles 12-B-16(b) and (e) of the Personnel Manual] because of 
your general lack of adaptability.  You are being given an honorable discharge. 

 
2.  You are afforded the opportunity to make a statement in writing in your behalf.  You shall indi-
cate your intention by completing the endorsement below. 
 
The applicant responded by indicating that he understood the notification and that he did 

not desire to submit a statement on his own behalf. 

 
On June 23, 1980, the applicant underwent a physical examination pursuant to his pend-
ing  discharge.    He  admitted  to  the  doctor  that  he  had  suffered  recurrent  bouts  of  depression 
during the past two years. 

 
On June 24, 1980, the applicant was honorably discharged with a DD 214 showing that 
he was discharged because of “Unsuitability – Personality Disorders,” with separation code JMB 
and reenlistment code RE-4. 

 
On or about August 6, 1980, a psychiatrist and psychologist signed the following dictated 

medical record regarding the applicant:  

 
This patient was initially seen on 17 June 1980 for evaluation for retention in the Coast Guard.  He 
presented with a history of severe suicidal ideation and recent overdose for which he was hospi-
talized in a civilian hospital and then returned to CG jurisdiction.  This OD was on OTC sleeping 
pills approximately 1 week prior to presentation.  We spent the initial time talking about his situa-
tion and his desire not to be in the Service.  This appears to be a very bright young man who cur-
rently relates to no one and finds himself ambivalent and confused about life.  I plan to follow in 
an attempt to evaluate and help him work some of the feelings through. 
 
Mental Status:  This is an alert, oriented, fairly cooperative and verbal young man appearing his 
stated  age.  …  He  is  initially  distrustful  of  me  and  the  situation.    Maintained  poor  eye  contact.  
There  is  no  evidence  of  intellectual  deficit,  psychotic  disorganization,  nor  homicidal  ideation.  
There is active suicidal ideation which I do not believe warrants hospitalization at this time.  Mood 
and affect were anxious and mildly depressed. … Insight incomplete and judgment very poor. 
 
Impression: 
 
Disposition: 

1)  Deferred until completion of evaluation (319.00)[1] 

1)  FFD [fit for duty] re: Psychiatry 
2)  RTC [follow-up consultation] 0830 6/23/80 
3)  Given my work, home and beeper numbers in case of problems.  Has agreed 

not to do anything without notifying me first.  Command advised. 

 
Addendum  of  6/23/80:    Received  a  couple  of  phone  calls  from  patient,  mother  and  command.  
Mother says that her son is “caught,” but he had promised to keep this appointment which he did 
not.  Command says that he made a complaint about my method of questions and I encouraged 
them to have him make a formal complaint and pointed out that I felt his getting angry at me was 
much healthier than taking his feelings out on himself.  Command says that he is to be discharged 

                                                 
1 Under the DSM, which is used by the Coast Guard in assessing mental illnesses, the number 319 denotes “Mental 
Retardation, with severity unspecified,” which is contrary to the psychiatrist’s finding that the applicant was “very 
bright” and had no “intellectual deficit.” American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL 
OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-R), p. 865.  Therefore, the number 319 
may be a typographical error.  In this regard, the Board notes that the number for an “Adjustment Disorder with 
depressed mood” is 309.0; the number for an “Unspecified Mental Disorder (non-psychotic)” is 300.9; and the num-
ber for a “Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified” is 301.9.  Id. at 862-65. 

from Service in next few days.  Hence, no RTC is feasible.  I did not call father who saw him over 
this  past  weekend.    Patient  definitely  should  pursue  counseling  after  service.    Because  of  the 
above, evaluation was not completed. 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 28, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board grant alternative relief.  In so doing, he adopted the facts 
and analysis provided in an enclosed memorandum prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Ser-
vice Center (PSC).   
 
The PSC noted that the applicant was told that he was being processed “for discharge due 
 
to a general lack of adaptability,” but that his DD 214 shows “Unsuitability – Personality Disor-
ders”  as  the  reason  for  his  separation.    The  PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “record  does  not 
support  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  a  personality  disorder.    However,  there  is  documentation 
regarding the applicant’s hospital admission and absence without leave.”  The PSC concluded 
that in “the interest of justice given the lack of supporting documentation for the assignment of a 
personality disorder, the Coast Guard does not object to the following changes to the applicant’s 
DD 214.”  The listed changes include a JVF separation code, an RE-3G reenlistment code (eligi-
ble for reenlistment with waiver), and “Condition, Not a Disability” as the narrative reason for 
separation, pursuant to Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual, which authorizes discharges for 
the convenience of the Government. 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 29, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the advisory opinion and invited 

him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Commandant to direct the discharge of an enlisted member for, inter alia,  

Article 12-B-16(b) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1980 (CG-207) authorized the 

 
(1)  Inaptitude.  Applicable to those persons who are best described as inapt due to lack of general 
adaptability, want or readiness of skill, unhandiness,  or inability to learn. 
(2)  Personality disorders.  As determined by medical authority, personality behavior disorders and 
disorders of intelligence listed in Chapter 5, CG Medical Manual (CG-294). 
(3) Apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. A significant observ-
able defect, apparently beyond the control of the individual, elsewhere not readily describable. 
 
 
Article 12-B-16(e) authorized the commanding officer of any training center to discharge 
a member with less than four months of active service for the reasons set forth in Article 12-B-
16(b)(1). 
 

Under Article 12-B-16(d), prior to recommending a member for such a discharge, the CO 
was required to notify the member of the proposed discharge; permit him to submit a statement 
on his own behalf; and, if a General discharge was contemplated, allow him to consult with an 
attorney. 

 
Article  12-B-16(h)  stated  that  when  a  psychiatric  condition  was  a  consideration  in  the 
discharge for unsuitability, the member should be examined by a psychiatrist who could either 
diagnose the member with a mental disability and refer the member to a medical board or, if 
there was no mental disability, complete an SF 502 form with a narrative summary describing 
the essential points of the mental condition and a statement averring that the member does not 
have a ratable disability. 
 
 
Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual authorized the Commandant to discharge mem-
bers for the convenience of the Government in cases of, inter alia, demobilization, commission-
ing, repetitive absenteeism, conscientious objection, motion sickness, obesity, and  
 

(12)  Condition, not a physical disability, which interferes with performance of duty; e.g. enuresis 
[bedwetting] or somnambulism [sleepwalking]. 

●   ●   ● 

 

(17)  When directed by the Secretary that any member be separated prior to the expiration of term 
of service, if the Secretary determines that such a separation is in the best interest of the Coast 
Guard. 
 
COMDTINST M1900.4B, issued in 1979, governed the preparation of DD 214s in 1980.  
Chapter 2 of the manual lists the following separation codes, narratives reasons for separation, 
and  reenlistment  codes  authorized  for  enlistment  members,  which  could  have  applied  to  the 
applicant’s discharge: 
 

 
Narrative Reason for Separation 

SPD 
Code 
JMB  Unsuitability – Personality Disorders 
JMD  Unsuitability – Inaptitude 
JFV  Condition, Not a Disability, interfering with 

performance of duty 

JND  Convenience of the Government 

JFF  Separation for other good and sufficient reasons 

when determined by the Secretary of Transportation 

JHJ  Burden to command due to substandard 

performance or inability to adapt to military service 

JHK  Substandard personal behavior which reflects 

discredit upon the Service or adversely affects the 
member’s performance of duties 

JPB  Personal abuse of drugs other than alcoholic 

beverages 

Authorized 
RE Codes 

RE-4 
RE-4 
RE-3G,a 

RE-4, or RE-3Xb 
RE-R1,c RE-1, or 

RE-4 

RE-R1, RE-1, or 

RE-4 
RE-4 

RE-4 

RE-4 

Separation 
Authority 
12-B-16 
12-B-16 
12-B-12 

12-B-12 

12-B-12 

12-B-12 

12-B-12 

12-B-20 

a An RE-3G denotes someone who would be eligible for reenlistment except for a condition, not a disabil-
ity, that interferes with his or her performance of duty. 
b An RE-3X denotes someone who would be eligible for reenlistment except for motion sickness. 
c The RE-R1 code is no longer used by the Coast Guard.  It denoted someone who was not just eligible, 
but particularly recommended for reenlistment.   
 

 
On December 3, 1979, the Commandant notified the commanding officer of the training 
center in Alameda, California, that recruits discharged for immaturity or academic inability could 
be assigned the RE-3G code, instead of the RE-4 code. 
 
Medical Definitions 
 

The  Coast  Guard  relies  on  the  American  Psychiatric  Association’S  DIAGNOSTIC  AND 
STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS  (DSM-IV-R)  when  diagnosing  members  with 
psychological conditions.2  Under the DSM-IV-R, a “personality disorder” is “an enduring pat-
tern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the indi-
vidual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is 
stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.”3  Types of personality disorders include 
paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, depend-
ent, and obsessive-compulsive.4  “The diagnosis of Personality Disorders requires an evaluation 
of the individual’s long-term patterns of functioning ….  The personality traits that define these 
disorders must also be distinguished from characteristics that emerge in response to specific situ-
ational stressors or more transient mental states ….  The clinician should assess the stability of 
personality traits over time and across different situations.”5   

 
An  “adjustment  disorder”  is  “a  psychological  response  to  an  identifiable  stressor  or 
stressors that results in the development of clinically significant emotional or behavioral symp-
toms. … The clinical significance of the reaction is indicated either by marked distress that is in 
excess of what would be expected given the nature of the stressor or by significant impairment in 
social or occupational (academic) functioning.”6  Adjustment disorders are normally temporary, 
as  the  symptoms  last  “no  longer  than  6  months  after  the  stressor  or  its  consequences  have 
ceased.”7  The common symptoms of adjustment disorders are anxiety, depression, and distur-
bance of emotions and conduct.8  Adjustment disorders are not personality disorders.9   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  The Board 
finds  that  the  applicant  has  exhausted  his  administrative  remedies,  as  required  by  33  C.F.R.  

                                                 
2 See Coast Guard Medical Manual, Chap. 5.B.1. 
3  American  Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH 
EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-R), p. 685. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. at 686. 
6 Id. at 679. 
7 Id. at 681. 
8 Id. at 680. 
9 Id. at 682. 

§  52.13(b),  because  there  is  no  other  currently  available  forum  or  procedure  provided  by  the 
Coast Guard for correcting the alleged error or injustice.10 

 Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant received his DD 214 showing that he was dis-
charged  due  to  “Unsuitability  –  Personality  Disorders”  with  an  RE-4  in  1980.   Therefore,  his 
application is untimely. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
6. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if 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 to determine 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 instructed 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.”11 

The  applicant  has  long  delayed  seeking  correction  of  the  alleged  error  in  his 
record.    However,  a  cursory  review  of  the  record  reveals  significant  merit  in  his  claim,  as 
explained below, and the JAG has recommended that the Board grant partial relief.  Therefore, 
the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to excuse the untimeliness of the application. 
 

The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed 
information in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the appli-
cant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed informa-
tion  is  erroneous  or  unjust.12  Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast 
Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, law-
fully, and in good faith.”13  

5. 

 
The applicant alleged that after he began training in Petaluma, he learned that he 
had contracted venereal disease from a longtime girlfriend and was so distraught about his future 
that he tried to commit suicide with sleeping pills.  He alleged that he was never diagnosed by a 
psychiatrist with a personality disorder, much less more than one, but was quickly discharged for 
“Unsuitability  –  Personality  Disorders”  even  though  he  had  been  told  that  he  was  being  dis-
charged for inability to adapt to the military.  The record does not support the applicant’s claim 
as  to  why  he  went  AWOL  and attempted  suicide.    The  Report  of  Medical  History,  which  he 

                                                 
10  Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1553(a),  the  Discharge  Review  Board  has  authority  to  upgrade  veterans’  discharges  only 
within the first 15 years from the date of discharge. 
11 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. 
Cir. 1995).   
12 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)).   
13 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

himself  prepared  pursuant  to  his  pre-enlistment  physical  examination,  shows  that  he  knew  on 
February 1, 1980, before he enlisted, that he had contracted a venereal disease.  In addition, the 
psychiatric note dated August 6, 1980, makes no mention of any problems with a girlfriend or 
diagnosis of venereal disease and instead indicates that the applicant attempted suicide because 
he was unhappy in the Coast Guard.  The Board also notes that the applicant admitted in June 
1980  that  he  had  suffered  from  depression  for  two  years,  which  he  had  denied  upon  inquiry 
during his pre-enlistment physical examination.  However, the discharge notification dated June 
20, 1980, strongly supports his claim that his command told him he was being discharged due to 
a general lack of adaptability, and the August 6, 1980, psychiatric note and the very rapidity of 
his  discharge  support  his  claim  that  he  was  not  diagnosed  with  a  personality  disorder  by  a 
medical authority prior to his discharge, as was required for such a discharge under Articles 12-
B0-16(b) and (h) of the Personnel Manual. 
 

The applicant’s discharge per se was not erroneous or unjust.14  Under Article 12-
B-16(b)(1) of the Personnel Manual, members who did not adapt to military life could be sepa-
rated for unsuitability in 1980, and this provision remains in the Personnel Manual today under 
Article 12.B.16.b.1.  The applicant’s attempted suicide and the psychiatric note dated August 6, 
1980, show that he was not adapting well to military life.  Moreover, he was given the opportu-
nity to object to being discharged and chose not to. 

7. 

 
8. 

The preponderance of the evidence, however, shows that the applicant’s discharge 
was documented improperly.  He was not diagnosed with a personality disorder, as indicated on 
his DD 214, and he was told he was being discharged due to a lack of adaptability.  Because 
employers often demand to see veterans’ DD 214s prior to hiring them, it is very important for 
DD 214s to be fair and not to unduly tarnish members’ records without substantial evidence.  In 
light of the highly prejudicial nature of a discharge by reason of “Personality Disorder(s),” the 
Board has often ordered the Coast Guard to correct the narrative reason on a DD 214 to “Condi-
tion, Not a Disability” or some other less prejudicial reason when the diagnosis of personality 
disorder was absent, uncertain, and/or not supported by inappropriate behavior.15   On the other 
hand, the Board has not removed the narrative reason “Personality Disorder” from the DD 214s 
of  some  veterans  whose  inappropriate  conduct  supported  their  diagnoses.16    In  this  case, 

                                                 
14 For purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that shocks 
the sense of justice.” Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 
(citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 
15 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2008-127, 2007-221, 2005-082, 2005-045, 2004-044, and 2003-015. 
16 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2005-158, 2001-020, 2000-142, 1999-185, 1999-037, and 1998-099 in which the 
Board upheld the unsuitability and personality disorder discharges of, respectively, a veteran with numerous disci-
plinary infractions who was diagnosed with “personality disorder not otherwise specified, [with] borderline [and] 
dependent traits” and who had attempted suicide and frequently threatened suicide; a veteran who was diagnosed 
with a dependent personality disorder after going AWOL and committing various other disciplinary infractions; a 
veteran who was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and went to an historic tower, told a guard at the 
bottom that he was going to hang himself off the top with a dog collar and leash, and waited at the top until the 
police arrived; a veteran with numerous disciplinary infractions and performance problems in his record who was 
diagnosed by two psychiatrists with a borderline personality disorder; a veteran who frequently exhibited inappro-
priate sexual behavior while on duty over a two-year period and was twice diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with 
disturbance of conduct”; and a veteran who was twice arrested for indecent exposure and diagnosed with narcissistic 
personality disorder. 

although  the  attempted  suicide  was  clearly  an  indication  of  some  mental  problem,  the 
psychological assessment and diagnosis were not completed prior to the applicant’s discharge, 
and there is no way for the Board to know now whether the suicide attempt was caused by a 
personality disorder, difficulty with adapting/adjusting to military life, immaturity, or some other 
issue. 

The  applicant  requested  a  discharge  by  reason  of  Secretarial  Authority  and  an  
RE-1 reenlistment code.  However, the Board is not persuaded that a member who went AWOL 
and attempted suicide should receive an RE-1 reenlistment code.  On the other hand, given the 
applicant’s current age, the Board is not persuaded that the RE-4 on his DD 214 continues to 
serve a useful purpose because he cannot reenlist in the Coast Guard in any case due to his age.  
Under COMDTINST M1900.4B, the possible combinations of narrative reasons for reenlistment 
and authorized codes are limited.  Given all of  the circumstances of this case, the applicant’s 
request, and the Coast Guard’s recommendation, the Board finds that it would be in the interest 
of justice to correct the applicant’s DD 214 to show that he was discharged because of a “Condi-
tion, Not a Disability,” pursuant to Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual, with a JFV separa-
tion code and an RE-3G reenlistment code.   

Accordingly,  partial  relief  should  be  granted  as  described  in  finding  9,  above. 
Moreover, the corrections should be made on a new DD 214, rather than on a DD 215 correction 
form, so that any future employer who may review the applicant’s DD 214 will not be able to see 
the comment “Unsuitability – Personality Disorders.” 

 
9. 

 
10. 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

his military record is granted in part as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
•  Block 25 on his DD 214 shall be corrected to show that he was discharged under the 
authority of Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A). 
 
•  Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code JFV. 

•  Block 27 shall be corrected to show reentry code RE-3G. 
 
•  Block  28  shall  be  corrected  to  show  “CONDITION,  NOT A  DISABILITY”  as  the 
narrative reason for separation. 
 
•  The Coast Guard shall issue him a new DD 214 reflecting these corrections, rather 
than issuing him a DD 215. 
 
•  The following notation shall be made in block 18 of the new DD 214:  “Action taken 
pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 Janice Williams-Jones