DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-205 
 
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  July  22,  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). 
 
 
pointed 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 ap-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that he received a general discharge and asked the Board to correct 
his record to show that he received a medical separation.  The applicant alleged that at the time 
of his discharge, he was being treated at xxxxxxx Naval Hospital for hives, anxiety, and high 
blood pressure.  A commander told him that he would receive an honorable discharge and could 
seek treatment for his conditions from the Veterans’ Administration (VA).  Later his parents were 
told that he had received a general discharge, which was unfair.   
 
 
The applicant stated that he was greatly embarrassed when the doctors reported that he 
was  passive-dependent  and  that  his  general  discharge  has  prevented  him  from  getting  certain 
jobs.  He argued that it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeli-
ness  of  his  application  because  he  has  had  open  heart  surgery,  suffers  from  several  medical 
conditions, and has lived with the embarrassment of his general discharge for a long time. 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD 214, which clearly 
 
shows that he received an honorable discharge.  Upon inquiry by the Chair, the applicant stated 
that he wants the Board to correct the reason for his discharge from unsuitability due to a pas-
sive-dependent personality disorder to physical disability.  The applicant stated that prior to his 
discharge, he was told that “a medical discharge would present a problem to me as to I wasn’t 
cured and it would prolong my military stay and hospitalization in xxxxxxx,” but, on the other 
hand, he “could take the honorable and be treated at our local VA hospital in xxxxxxxxxx where 

I was from.”  Therefore, he took the honorable discharge.  The VA treated his medical conditions 
and soon awarded him a 20% service-connected disability rating. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that “a letter was sent to my parents stating I was discharged with a 
general  under  honorable  conditions  due  to  I  was  unfit  for  military  duty  due  to  being  passive-
dependent.”    He  stated  that  “[t]his  has  played  a  major  part  in  my  life  causing  daily  extreme 
amount of pain and mental suffering as to I was treated unfairly.”  Because of embarrassment, he 
has not reported his military service for employment purposes.  Moreover, doctors have told him 
that his stress related to his health has gotten worse, and it is a struggle to get to work everyday. 
 

This patient is a 19-year old SA US Coast Guardsman with about 1 ½ years active duty.  He was 
referred for evaluation because of recurrent rash on  his skin.  The patient indicated that he had 
been told that the doctors thought it was due to “my nerves,” and he indicated that he was inclined 

                                                 
1  Urticaria,  or  hives,  is  “a  vascular  reaction  in  the  upper  dermis,  usually  transient,  consisting  of  localized  edema 
caused by dilatation and increase capillary permeability, with development of wheals [itchy bumps].  Many different 
stimuli  may  induce  it,  and  it  may  be  classified  as  either  immune-mediated  …  material-induced,  physical  agent-
induced, stress-induced, or idiopathic.”  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 29th ed. (W.B. Saunders 
Co., 2000), p. 1921.   

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On November 12, 1973, the applicant sought treatment for a rash on his neck and chest. 

 
 
On  September  11,  1972,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years.    He 
attended  training  and  was  assigned  to  the  CGC  xxxxxxxxxxx,  a  high  endurance  cutter 
homeported in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
 
 
From  July  3  to  16,  1973,  the  applicant  was  absent  without  leave  (AWOL)  from  the 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  He was punished at mast and fined $50 for his unauthorized absence.  From 
September 8 to 12, 1973, the applicant was AWOL again and missed his ship’s movement.  He 
was punished at mast and fined $100 for this misconduct. 
 
 
 
 
On November 17, 1973, the applicant was in a car accident and sought treatment for pain 
in his back, wrist, and shoulder.  X-rays revealed no abnormalities.  On November 19, 1973, the 
applicant sought treatment for back pain.  He told the doctor that he had suffered intermittent 
back pain since he injured his back playing baseball four years earlier, prior to his enlistment.  
The doctor stated that his x-rays were normal and that he had a full range of motion in his back. 
 
 
On January 4, 1974, the applicant sought treatment for dizziness, a pounding heart, and 
past pain in his left arm.  He reported that the pain had occurred in his arm for three minutes 
while he was home for the holidays on January 1, 1974. 
 
 
On January 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 21, 1974, the applicant sought treatment for severe hives 
(urticaria).1    The  doctor  reported  that  the  applicant’s  hives  had  not  responded  to  prescribed 
antihistamines and ointments.  On January 23, 1974, the applicant was admitted to a hospital to 
determine the cause of his hives.  The results of all physical and laboratory tests were normal.  
Therefore, he was examined by a psychiatrist, who reported the following: 
 

to agree.  He stated that when he was home, the rash cleared up but would recur when he made 
plans to return back to the Coast Guard.  He further indicated that his mother said that when he 
was a child, he would develop a rash when he had to go to see a doctor or a dentist. … 
 
On mental examination, the patient related in a rather bitter, passive, but covertly hostile manner.  
He was extremely dejected about his lot in the Coast Guard, and it was apparent that his motiva-
tion was almost non-existent.  He showed no evidence of psychosis or other true mental disease 
 
CONCLUSIONS:  This patient shows evidence of a rather MARKED PASSIVE-DEPENDENT 
PERSONALITY, and it is strongly recommended that he be administratively discharged from the 
Coast Guard on the basis of his personality disorder.2  He has no service-incurred disability from a 
psychiatric standpoint. 

 
 
On February 5, 1974, the applicant was released from the hospital.  A doctor noted that 
the applicant had a passive-dependent personality disorder but was mentally competent and had 
no mental defects that were ratable as a disability under the Veterans’ Administration Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).  The doctor also reported the following: 
 

 

(1) Urticaria, probably psychogenic 
(2) Passive-Dependent Personality 

DIAGNOSES: 
 
 
HISTORY:  The patient is an 19-year old Caucasian male who had been in his usual state of health 
until  about  two  weeks  prior  to  admission  when  he  had  an  onset  of  intractable  hives  which  had 
been treated with steroids as well as antihistamines and tranquilizers.  He had received no relief 
with this treatment. 
 

 

The patient stated that he had intermittent hives several times over the past six months 
which had subsided spontaneously.  He also stated that when he was a child and went to the den-
tist, he used to break out in hives before he arrived at the dentist’s office.  He stated that he wanted 
to leave the Coast Guard. … 

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:  Revealed a well-developed, well-nourished Caucasian male in no 
apparent distress.  [Head, chest, abdomen, and cardiac examination and all laboratory test results 
were normal.] … Rest of physical examination was within normal limits. 
 
SKIN EXAM:  Scattered urticaria over the entire body. 
HOSPITAL COURSE:  The patient was placed on antihistamines, his steroids were tapered, but he 
continued to have mild to moderately severe hives throughout his admission.  He was seen in Der-
matology  Clinic  by  [Dr. A]  on  1-25-74  who  felt  that  the  urticaria  were  quite  possibly  due  to  a 
stress reaction as there was no direct evidence of other allergies.  He was seen by our psychiatrist, 
[Dr. H] on 2-4-74, who felt that the patient had a marked passive-dependent personality, and he 
strongly recommended that the patient be discharge administratively from the Coast Guard on this 
basis.    The  Medical  Service  feels  that  the  patient’s  urticaria  are  also  related  to  his  psychiatric 

                                                 
2 A “personality disorder” is “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the 
expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, 
is  stable  over  time,  and  leads  to  distress  or  impairment.”  American  Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND 
STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT  REVISION  (2000)  (hereinafter  “DSM-IV-
TR”), p. 685.  Types of personality disorders include paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histri-
onic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive.  Id.  “The diagnosis of Per-
sonality 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 
situational stressors or more transient mental states.” Id. at 686.  Personality disorders are not considered physical 
disabilities by the Coast Guard or the DVA. 2006 MEDICAL MANUAL, Chap. 5.B.2.; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.127 and 4.130. 

condition and that they will continue to interfere with the patient’s ability to carry our his duties in 
the  Coast  Guard.    For  this  reason,  we  also  recommend  that  the  patient  be  administratively  dis-
charge from the Coast Guard. 
 
DISPOSITION:  The patient is discharged from the hospital FIT FOR DUTY PENDING ACTION 
BY THE COAST GUARD ON THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS. 

 

On February 12, 1974, the applicant went AWOL for the night.  He returned the next day 
and told a doctor that he went AWOL because he could not handle being on a ship any more and 
his rash was driving him crazy.  The doctor noted that all medical treatments had failed to eradi-
cate the applicant’s hives and that further treatment would not be helpful because the urticaria 
“stems from an emotional base and if [the] recommendations for his discharge are not followed, 
hives will continue and will cont[inue] to waste command’s time, [patient’s] time, doctor’s time 
and will continue to frustrate everyone concerned.  NO RX.” 
 
On February 20, 1974, the commanding officer (CO) of Group xxxxxxx formally notified 
 
the applicant in a memorandum that he was recommending that the applicant receive an adminis-
trative discharge for unsuitability due to his passive-dependent personality.  The CO noted that 
he had a right to submit a statement on his own behalf.  The applicant signed an acknowledgment 
of this notification and indicated that he did not desire to make a statement regarding the CO’s 
recommendation that he be administratively discharged. 
 
 
On February 20, 1974, the CO recommended to the Commandant that the applicant be 
discharged for unsuitability because a psychiatrist had diagnosed him with a passive-dependent 
personality  disorder.    He  noted  that  a  personality  disorder  is  not  a  ratable  disability,  that  the 
applicant was mentally competent, and that the applicant had elected not to submit a statement 
regarding his discharge. 
 
 
“unsuitability” pursuant to Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual, with separation code 265. 
 
 
On February 26, 1974, the applicant signed his Termination of Health Record while indi-
cating that he agreed with the findings of the physical examination given to him on February 4, 
1974, and that he did not desire to submit a statement to rebut the findings. 
 
 
On  February  26,  1974,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.  
His DD 214 cites the authority and reason as Article 12-B-10 and separation code 265.  He was 
not recommended for reenlistment.  He was issued an honorable discharge certificate. 
 
 
On May 27, 2009, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) informed the applicant that 
his rating for service-connected generalized anxiety disorder was granted with a 30% rating as of 
February 25, 2009; that his rating for urticaria at 20% was continued; and that service connection 
for hypertension, coronary artery disease, and a back condition was denied. 
 

On  February  21,  1974,  the  Commandant  ordered  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  for 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 20, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG stated that the application 
should  be  denied  for  untimeliness  and  lack  of  merit  because  the  applicant  was  aware  of  his 
discharge status in 1974 and “provides no rationale for his approximately 35+ year delay.   
 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
 
submitted by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC).  PSC stated that the 
psychiatrist’s report shows that the applicant’s urticaria resulted from stress (psychogenic) and 
that this condition pre-existed his enlistment because it occurred when he was a child and visited 
the dentist.  PSC stated that no evaluation by a medical board was initiated because the applicant 
was fit for duty and had no service-incurred disability.  However, his diagnosed personality dis-
order qualified him for an administrative discharge for unsuitability under Article 12-B-16 of the 
Personnel Manual.  PSC stated, 
 

In summation, the applicant was discharged due to a pre-existing condition deemed unsuitable for 
continued  military  service  and  not  due  to  a  physical  disability  incurred  while  a  member  of  the 
Coast Guard.  If the latter were the case, the member would rate appropriately under the Physical 
Disability Evaluation System for possible medical discharge.  The applicant’s process for separa-
tion was administrative in nature based upon the concurrent diagnosis of both the resident psychia-
trist and medical doctor that examined [him] in 1974.   

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 24, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Chapter 5-C-1 of the old Medical Manual, CG-294,3 states that Coast Guard members 
diagnosed with a personality, character, or behavior disorder should be considered for an admin-
istrative discharge under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual.  The list of disorders includes 
passive-dependent personality disorder.   

 
Chapter 3-B-3(c)(4)(d) states, “If the review of physical examination report indicates that 
an  examinee  on  active  duty  does  not  meet  the  minimum  physical  standards  for  retention  on 
active duty, and a waiver of the defects has not been made and approved, the reviewing authority 
will arrange for the examinee to be evaluated by a Medical Board.”  Chapter 3-G-2(a) states that 
the physical standards listed in Chapter 3-I apply to the retention and potential disqualification of 
regular enlisted personnel. 

 
Chapter 3-I-15(c)(2) of the Medical Manual states that “[t]ransient personality disruptions 
of a nonpsychotic nature or situational maladjustments due to acute or special stress do not ren-
der an individual unfit because of physical disability.” 
                                                 
3  The  Board  does  not  have  a  1974  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  but  does  have  one  that  was  issued  in  1976.  
Therefore, all citations will be to the 1976 regulations in U.S. COAST GUARD, CG-294, MEDICAL MANUAL (1976). 

 
Under Chapter 3-I-16(x) of the Medical Manual, urticaria that is chronic, severe, and not 
amenable to treatment is disqualifying for retention on active duty.  Under Chapter 3-I-11(c)(1), 
hypertensive  cardiovascular  disease  and  hypertensive  vascular  disease  are  disqualifying  for 
retention if the member has the following: 

 
a.  Diastiolic pressure consistently more than 110 millimeters of mercury flowing adequate period 
of therapy on an ambulatory status, or 
b.  Any documented history of hypertension regardless of the pressure values if associated with 
one or more of the following: 

1.  More than minimal demonstrable changes in the brain. 
2.  Heart disease related to the hypertension. 
3.  Kidney involvement, manifested by unequivocal impairment of renal function. 
4..Grade III (Keith-Wagener-Barker) changes in the fundi. 

 
Under Article 12-B-10(a) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1974,4 the Commandant 
could discharge a member for unsuitability if the member was diagnosed with a personality dis-
order.    Article  12-B-10(d)  states  that  a  member  being  discharged  for  unsuitability  should  be 
examined by a medical officer and by a psychiatrist if a psychiatric condition is involved.  The 
psychiatrist  should  determine  whether  the  member  is  mentally  competent  and/or  has  a  mental 
disability ratable under the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), 
in which case the member would be referred to a Board of Medical Survey.  Under Article 12-B-
10(e), a member being recommended for an unsuitability discharge who had less than eight years 
of military service was entitled to notice of the proposed discharge and the reasons therefore and 
an opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.  (Members with more than eight years of 
service were entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Discharge Board.)   
 

Under COMDTINST 1900.4, the instruction for preparing DD 214s in 1974,5 members 
discharged for unsuitability because of a diagnosed personality, character, or behavior disorder 
under  Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  1974  received  separation  code  265  and 
reenlistment code RE-4.  
 

Article 17-A-1-(h) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1974 states that “[e]ntitlement to 
disability retirement or separation arises only on a determination of physical unfitness to perform 
duties.  It does not arise at the convenience of the member on the mere existence of a disability 
or a condition ratable under the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities.”  Arti-
cle 17-A-12(c) states, “The mere presence of physical disability or of a disability ratable under 
the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities, or the fact that the evaluee is cur-
rently on the sick list or hospitalized, does not require a finding of unfitness for duty.”  Article 
17-A-1(b) states, “The fact that a member is determined to be unfit for duty while on active duty 
is not sufficient by itself to entitle him to disability retirement or severance pay.  There must be a 
medical conclusion that this unfitness is due to a disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.”  
Article  17-A-10(a)  states  that  “[t]he  term  ‘physical  disability’  does  not  include  such  inherent 
defects as behavior disorders, personality disorders, ….” 

                                                 
4 U.S. COAST GUARD, CG-207, PERSONNEL MANUAL (Amend. No. 41, 1974). 
5 U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE 
CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, DD FORM 214, Encl. (2) (1973). 

 

Under Chapter 5.B.2. of the Medical Manual and Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Man-
ual in effect today, members are administratively discharged (rather than medically separated) 
for diagnosed personality disorders that interfere with their performance of duty. 

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 over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

 

1. 
 
2. 

3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice in his military record.  The appli-
cant received his unsuitability discharge in 1974.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 
 

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.”6   

Regarding the delay of his application, the applicant argued that it would be in the 
interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeliness because his discharge was unfair and 
he has had open heart surgery.  The applicant’s argument is not compelling because he has not 
shown that anything prevented him from seeking correction of his record more timely.  However, 
because the Board’s cursory review of the record shows that the applicant may have been dis-
charged at least in part due to hives, the Board will waive the statute of limitations and consider 
the case on the merits. 

The applicant alleged that he should have received a medical separation in 1974 
because he was being treated for hives, anxiety, and high blood pressure. However, Coast Guard 
members were not in the 1970s and are not today medically separated with a disability rating just 
because they have a medical condition when they are discharged.7  Medical separations were and 

                                                 
6 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995).   
7  U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  CG-207,  PERSONNEL  MANUAL,  Art.  17-A-1(h)  (Amend.  No.  41,  1974)  (“Entitlement  to 
disability retirement or separation arises only on a determination of physical unfitness to perform duties.  It does not 
arise at the convenience of the member on the mere existence of a disability or a condition ratable under the Veter-
ans  Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities.”); Id., Art. 17-A-12(c) (“The mere  presence of physical dis-
ability or of a disability ratable under the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities, or the fact that 
the  evaluee  is  currently  on  the  sick  list  or  hospitalized,  does  not  require  a  finding  of  unfitness  for  duty.”);  U.S. 
COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1850.2D, PHYSICAL DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM, Chap. 2.C.2.i. (May 2006) 
(hereinafter “PDES MANUAL”) (“Although a member may have physical impairments ratable in accordance with the 

are received by members who are involuntarily separated because a physical disability incurred 
while serving on active duty has rendered them unfit for continued military service.8   

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
6. 

 

Under Chapters 3-B-3(c)(4)(d) and 3-G-2(a) of the Medical Manual, only disabili-
ties listed as potentially disqualifying for retention in Chapter 3-I could result in a member being 
referred to a Medical Board for evaluation and possible medical separation.  Although the appli-
cant complained of dizziness and a pounding heart on January 4, 1974, there is no evidence that 
he had hypertension that was disqualifying for retention on active duty under the criteria listed in 
Chapter 3-I-11(c)(1) of the Medical Manual.  The hospital report dated February 5, 1974, shows 
that his cardiac examinations and all test results were normal. 

The  applicant’s  medical  records  show  that  at  the  time  of  his  discharge,  he  was 
complaining of stress and urticaria (hives).  Because doctors could not find a physical cause for 
the  urticaria,  he  was  evaluated  by  a  psychiatrist,  who  diagnosed  his  conditions  as  a  passive-
dependent personality disorder and “urticaria, probably psychogenic” and noted that the appli-
cant wanted out of the Coast Guard.  The psychiatrist’s diagnoses are presumptively correct.9   

Personality disorders were not and are not considered physical disabilities by the 
Coast Guard or the DVA and so do not entitle a member to a medical separation.10  Under Chap-
ter 3-I-16(x) of the Medical Manual, urticaria that is chronic, severe, and not amenable to treat-
ment is disqualifying for retention on active duty and may result in a medical separation.  How-
ever, the applicant’s urticaria was apparently psychogenic—i.e., it resulted from the stress he felt 
about being in the Coast Guard due to his passive-dependent personality disorder.  The applicant 
told the doctor that his hives cleared up when he was home on leave.  Therefore, the doctors rec-
ommended that he be administratively discharged due to his personality disorder, which was in 
accordance with Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual then in effect.  In addition, the Board 
notes that the applicant’s condition pre-existed his enlistment.  He told the doctors that even as a 
young child he got hives when he was under stress, such as when he went to a dental appoint-
ment.  Pre-existing conditions do not qualify a member for a medical separation.  Article 17-A-
1(b) of the 1974 Personnel Manual states that to be entitled to a disability discharge, “[t]here 
must be a medical conclusion that this unfitness is due to a disability incurred while entitled to 
basic pay.”  [Emphasis added.] 

                                                                                                                                                             
VASRD, such impairments do not necessarily render him or her unfit for military duty … Such a member should 
apply to the [DVA] for disability compensation after release from active duty.”). 
8 U.S. COAST GUARD, CG-207, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. 17-A-1(b) (Amend. No. 41, 1974) (“The fact that a mem-
ber  is  determined  to  be  unfit  for  duty  while  on  active  duty  is  not  sufficient  by  itself  to  entitle  him  to  disability 
retirement or severance pay.  There must be a medical conclusion that this unfitness is due to a disability incurred 
while entitled to basic pay.”); PDES MANUAL, Chap. 2.C.2.b. (“The law that provides for disability retirement or 
separation (10 U.S.C., chapter 61) is designed to compensate members whose military service is terminated due to a 
physical disability that has rendered him or her unfit for continued duty.”). 
9 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), for the required presumption, absent evidence to the contrary, that Gov-
ernment officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”).   
10 U.S. COAST GUARD, CG-207, PERSONNEL MANUAL, Art. 17-A-10(a) (Amend. No. 41, 1974) (“The term ‘physical 
disability’  does  not  include  such  inherent  defects  as  behavior  disorders,  personality  disorders,  primary  mental 
deficiency,  congenital  or  developmental  defects,  or  developmental  refractive  errors  of  the  eye.”);  2006  MEDICAL 
MANUAL, Chap. 5.B.2.; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.127 and 4.130. 

9. 

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant’s discharge 
resulted not from a physical disability incurred while on active duty but from a pre-existing per-
sonality disorder that caused him to feel stress while on active duty and to develop psychogenic 
hives that disappeared when he was at home.  The applicant received all due process with respect 
to his discharge proceedings in 1974.  As required under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Man-
ual then in effect, he was notified on February 20, 1974, of the reason for his pending discharge 
and afforded an opportunity to submit a statement, which he declined.  These are the same rights 
that a member diagnosed with a personality disorder has today. 

The  applicant  pointed  out  that  the  DVA  has  diagnosed  him  with  a  service-
connected  anxiety  disorder  rated  at  30%  disabling  and  urticaria  rated  at  20%  disabling  and 
argued that these ratings show that the Coast Guard erred in discharging him due to a personality 
disorder.  However, DVA ratings are “not determinative of the same issues involved in military 
disability cases.”11  Therefore, the fact that the DVA diagnosed the applicant with an anxiety dis-
order,  rather  than  a  personality  disorder,  and  found  his  anxiety  disorder  and  urticaria  to  be 
service connected even though he suffered urticaria when feeling stress as a child does not prove 
that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  diagnosing  him  in  1974  or  in  discharging  him  for  a  passive-
dependent personality disorder. 

The applicant stated that he continues to suffer embarrassment because of his dis-
charge and does not use his military service to gain employment because of his diagnosis and 
unsuitability  discharge.    His  DD  214,  however,  does  not  state  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  a 
personality disorder or that he was discharged for unsuitability.  The only notation on his DD 214 
that indicates his personality disorder is the separation code 265, and this was the correct code in 
1974  for  members  who,  like  the  applicant,  were  being  discharged  because  of  a  diagnosed 
personality disorder.12  The Coast Guard revised all of its separation codes in May 1975, when it 
began using letter codes instead of numerical codes, so separation code 265 has not been in use 
for almost 35 years.13  The Board is not persuaded that the code is erroneous or unjust.14 

 
10. 

 
11. 

 
12. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because he has not proved 
by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by 
administratively discharging him due to a diagnosed personality disorder with separation code 
265 instead of processing him for a medical disability separation. 
 
                                                 
11 Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983); see Kirwin v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 497, 507 (1991) (“The VA 
rating [in 1986] is irrelevant to the question of plaintiff's fitness for duty at the time of his discharge in 1978. Indeed, 
the fact that the VA retroactively applied plaintiff’s 100% temporary disability rating only to 1982, and not 1978, 
gives some indication that plaintiff was not suffering from PTSD at the time of his discharge.”); Dzialo v. United 
States, 5 Cl. Ct. 554, 565 (1984) (holding that a VA disability rating “is in no way determinative on the issue of 
plaintiff’s eligibility for disability retirement pay.”).  
12 U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE 
CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, DD FORM 214, Encl. (2) (1973). 
13 U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4A, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE 
CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, DD FORM 214 (May 14, 1975). 
14 For the purposes of the BCMRs, “‘[i]njustice’, when not also ‘error’, is treatment by the military authorities, that 
shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976).  
The Board has authority to determine whether an injustice exists on a “case-by-case basis.” Docket No. 2002-040 
(DOT BCMR, Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, Dec. 4, 2002). 

The application of former SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.