DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-137 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on May 4, 2009, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision 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  January  14,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-3E (eligible to 
reenlist with waiver for erroneous enlistment) to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).   The applicant 
enlisted in the Coast Guard on March 17, 1992 and was honorably discharged on April 15, 1992, 
by reason of convenience of the government due to erroneous enlistment (preexisting medical 
condition), with a JFC1 separation code and an RE-3E2 reenlistment code.     
 
 
The applicant alleged that he needs his reenlistment code changed so that he can enlist in 
the Air National Guard.  He stated that he has successfully completed two enlistments with the 
Army  National Guard with no physical problems related to the condition that precipitated his 
discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.  The  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his  separation  document 
from the National Guard.   
 

                                                 
1      A  JFC  separation  code  means  that  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged  due  to  an  erroneous 
enlistment.   
 
2   An RE-3E reenlistment code means that the applicant is eligible for enlistment except for disqualifying 
factor:  erroneous enlistment. 
 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error  with  respect  to  his 
reenlistment code until April 8, 2009.  He stated that he did not know at the time of discharge 
that an RE-3E reenlistment code could disqualify him from enlisting in another branch of service 
without requesting a waiver.  

 
  Upon  reporting  to  recruit  training,  the  applicant  underwent  a  pre-training  medical 
examination on March 19, 1992, that determined he was not qualified for training due to bilateral 
shin splints.  The applicant did not indicate any problems with shin splints during his March 10, 
1992 enlistment medical examination. A March 19, 1992 medical note stated that the applicant 
was told in 1991 (prior to enlistment) that he suffered from bilateral shin splints.  
 

On March 19, 1992, a medical board reviewed the situation and stated that the applicant 
was  fit  for  duty.    However,  on  March  23,  1992,  the  applicant  reported  to  the  medical  clinic 
complaining of bilateral tibia pain and was placed on light duty.  The applicant again reported to 
the  clinic  regarding  his  shin  splints  on  March  31,  1992,  and  was  continued  light  duty  and 
directed to undergo a bone scan.  The bone imaging revealed “Findings consistent with bilateral 
tibial stress fractures . . .”   On April 10, 1992 a medical board recommended that the applicant 
be discharged from the Coast Guard due to bilateral tibial stress fractures.   

 
The applicant was advised of the proposed discharge and provided with an opportunity to 
make  a  written  statement.    On  April  13,  1992,  by  signature,  the  applicant  acknowledged  the 
proposed discharge and expressed his desire not to submit a written statement.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 26, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG noted that 
the  application  was  not  timely  and  that  it  was  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the 
untimiliness because the applicant did not offer an explanation for his 17-year delay in applying 
to the Board.   

 
The JAG also adopted the facts and analysis provided by Commander, Personnel Service 
Command  (PSC)  as  part  of  the  Coast  Guard's  advisory  opinion.  PSC  noted  that  although  the 
applicant had been told of his bilateral shin splints in 1991, he did not list the information on his 
enlistment  medical  examination  document  or  on  his  pre-training  medical  examination  form.   
PSC noted that bilateral shin splints is a disqualifying condition for enlistment under the Medical 
Manual.  PSC further stated the following: 
 

The  applicant  received  a  separation  code  of  “JFC”  which  is  administratively 
correct.    Separation  code  “JFC”  designates  an  erroneous  entry  (into  the  [Coast 
Guard]).  Had the applicant disclosed this medical condition before accession into 
the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  would  have  been  disqualified  for  enlistment 
immediately.    The  explanation  given  for  this  code  is,  “Involuntary  discharge 
directed  by  established  directive  (with  no  board  entitlement)  when  individual 
erroneously  enlisted,  reenlisted,  extended,  or  was  inducted  into  a  Service 

component  (not  related  to  alcohol  or  drug  abuse).”    This  is  the  appropriate 
separation code under the prevailing circumstances. 
 
The only authorized RE code for this type of separation is RE-3E or RE-4.  The 
applicant received an RE-3E.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 

On August 28, 2009, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant so that he 

 
could submit a response to them.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.   
 

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: 
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 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.   The alleged error occurred at 
the time of the applicant’s discharge in 1992.  Although the applicant was discharged in 1992 
and  received  a  DD  Form  214  that  listed  the  reason  for  his  discharge,  his  SPD  code,  and  his 
reenlistment  code,  he  argues  that  the  Board  should  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations 
because he did not know at the time of his discharge that the RE-3E would disqualify him from 
enlisting in another branch of the service without obtaining a waiver.  He offered no explanation 
why  he  did  not  seek  clarification  of  the  RE-3E  at  the  time  of  his  discharge  or  immediately 
thereafter.  The applicant should and could have discovered the alleged error within three years 
of  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.      The  applicant's  reason  for  not  filing  his  application 
sooner is not persuasive to the Board. Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant’s reason 
for not filing his application within three years of his discharge is insufficient to support a waiver 
of the statute of limitations.  
 

3.   However, 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.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 
1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 
 
4.    The  Board  is  not  persuaded  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  based  on  a  cursory 
 
review of the merits.  In this regard, the Board finds that the applicant is not likely to prevail on 
his  claim.    The  applicant's  bilateral  shin  splints  were  identified  as  a  disqualifying  condition 

during his recruit training. A March 19, 1992 medical note stated that a private doctor told the 
applicant of his bilateral shin splints in 1991; but there is no evidence that the applicant shared 
this information with the Coast Guard prior to his enlistment.  Under Article 3-D-10.d.(3) of the 
Medical  Manual  disease,  pain,  or  fractures  of  the  leg,  knee,  thigh  or  hip  that  interfere  with 
walking, running, or weight bearing  are disqualifying for enlistment.   In the opinion of Coast 
Guard medical personnel the applicant did not meet the medical qualifications for enlistment and 
recommended his discharge as being in the best interest of the Service.  Article 12-B-12 of the 
Personnel Manual authorizes the discharge of recruits by reason of erroneous enlistment who are 
undergoing training, have fewer than 60 days of active duty, and have a physical disability that 
existed prior to entry into the Coast Guard.  The applicant had been on active duty for only 1 
month  at  the  time  of  his  discharge  due  to  erroneous  enlistment.    The  applicant  has  offered 
nothing  to  prove  that  the  Coast  Guard's  diagnosis  was  erroneous  or  that  his  discharge  was 
improper.  Nor has he shown the reenlistment or separation codes to be erroneous.  Each code 
was assigned in accordance with COMDTINST M1900.4B (Instructions for the Preparation and 
Distribution of the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214).     
 
 
5.    The  applicant  argued  that  his  reenlistment  code  should  be  changed  so  that  he  can 
enlist  in  the  Air  National  Guard.    The  Board  notes  that  an  RE-3E  code  is  not  a  bar  to 
reenlistment,  but  means  that  a  waiver  must  be  obtained  to  reenlist  the  applicant  due  to  an 
erroneous  enlistment.    Again,  the  applicant  has  presented  no  evidence  that  he  has  asked  any 
recruiting  personnel  to  request  a  waiver  on  his  behalf.    The  applicant’s  recently  completed 
service in the Army National Guard should support a waiver for enlistment since it is suggest 
that the bilateral shin splints did not interfere with his ability to perform his duties while in the 
National Guard.   
 

6.  Accordingly the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute 

of limitations in this case and it should be denied. 

 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
Evan R. Franke 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.