DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

  

_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for Correction           
of the Coast Guard Record of:                     
                                         
                                                                                       BCMR Docket No. 2009-248 
                                                                               
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                           
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

FINAL DECISION                                                                                     

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
On  July  12,  2001,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  attention  deficit  hyperactivity 
disorder (ADHD) which formed the basis for his discharge from the Coast Guard.  The applicant 
states that he had ADHD but has outgrown the condition.  He stated that he was referred for a 
psychological  evaluation  while  on  active  duty  because  ship’s  personnel  thought  he  made  a 
threatening gesture against another sailor.  The applicant explained that when his supervisor took 
his study materials from him and refused to give them back he became upset.  He stated that he 
went into another part of the ship, took out his knife and laid it on the tool box and stated to 
another person, “take this from me before I kill that guy.”  The next day he was taken off the ship 
                                                 
1 Prior to enlisting in the Coast Guard, the applicant served in the Army.  His DD 214 from the Army states that he 
was discharged after 2 years, five months, and 16 days with a general discharge under honorable conditions, because 
of misconduct (no further information with regard to the misconduct).   

 
 
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 upon receipt of the applicant's 
completed application on September 3, 2009, and subsequently prepared the final 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  May  27,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by upgrading his RE-4 (not 
eligible  for  reenlistment)  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3  (eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for 
disqualifying factor). 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  14,  1998,1  and  was  honorably 
 
discharged on August 30, 2001, by reason of unsuitability due to personality disorder, with a JFX 
(personality disorder) separation code, and with an RE-4 reenlistment code.   
 

  

and  told  he  would  undergo  a  psychological  evaluation  to  determine  if  he  were  suicidal  or 
homicidal.   
 
 
On July 13, 2001, a mental health flight commander in the Medical Corps wrote a letter 
to the applicant’s command stating that he had diagnosed the applicant with ADHD combined 
type. The mental health commander also wrote the following in part: 
 

There  is  no  evidence  of  a  severe  mental  disorder  that would warrant a medical 
board.  [The applicant] is not now nor has he ever been suicidal, by his report.  
[The applicant] has a history of attention deficit disorder preceding his entry into 
the Coast Guard.  Individuals with this disorder may have difficulty with mood 
instability  or  anger  control  as  well  as  with  learning  and  retaining  information.  
However, it can respond to a combination of medication management and therapy.  
[The applicant] has only recently been restarted on medication for his condition 
after an absence of treatment since high school.  I believe with a combination of 
treatment . . . and continued training and duty he could be an effective member of 
the Coast Guard, and would recommend a trial of such for about six months. If he 
is unable to perform up to acceptable standards after a trial of duty, disposition 
through administrative channels would be appropriate.   

 
 
The  applicant does not deny that he had ADHD at the time of his separation from the 
Coast Guard, but denies that he still has it today.  In this regard, he stated that since his discharge 
he has been a manager for three business and operated machines and forklifts, which he would 
not  have  been  able  to  do  if  he  suffered  with ADHD.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  regretted 
making the comment and gesture that led to his referral for a psychological evaluation and that he 
would never hurt anyone.   
  
 
The applicant stated that although he discovered the alleged error on September 1, 2001, 
it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  consider  his  application  because “I want to proudly serve my 
country.”   
 

 
PERTINENT EXCERPTS FROM THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 
 
On July 25, 2001, the applicant was advised by his commanding officer (CO) that the CO 
had initiated action to discharge him from the Coast Guard under Article 12.B.9. of the Personnel 
Manual2  due  to  his  diagnosis  of  attention  deficit  disorder  (ADD),  a  type  of  learning  disorder.  
The CO told the applicant that although his overall performance marks warranted an honorable 
discharge,  his  immediate  past  performance  marks  indicated  a  number  of  deficiencies  in  his 
performance, “including an inability to understand and demonstrate knowledge of fundamental 
engineering concepts.  The CO noted that the applicant had been on performance probation and 
undergone  counseling  for  anger  management.  Still,  the  ADD  continued  to  be  a  source  of 
distraction for the applicant and his shipmates.  The CO stated that the applicant’s ADD was an 
obstacle to performing at an acceptable level.   
 

                                                 
2 Article 12,B.9. of the Personnel Manual contains the procedures for processing an unsatisfactory performer.   

  

 
The applicant by his signature acknowledged the proposed discharge, objected to it, and 
attached  a  statement  in  his  behalf.    In  his  statement,  the  applicant  asserted  that  the  anger 
management sessions were beneficial.  The applicant stated that the drug Zyban also helped with 
the ADD.  The applicant stated that he had been diagnosed with ADD at the age of 12 and that he 
took  the  drug  Ritalin  until  age  20  when  he  decided  to  stop  taking  it.   The  applicant  asked  to 
remain  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  reminded  the  CO  of  the  investment  that  the  Coast  Guard  had 
made in his training.  
  
 
On August 8, 2001, the CO asked the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command to 
discharge the applicant under Article 12.B.16. (unsuitability) of the Personnel Manual due to the 
ADD diagnosis and the performance and behavior problems associated with it.  The CO stated 
that since reporting aboard the command, the applicant had been a source of constant negative 
attention to the crew and the command.  The CO noted that the applicant had been placed on 
performance  probation  because  of  his  poor  performance,  attitude  and  behavior,  his  failure  to 
qualify as engineer of the watch, and his failure to become qualified in damage control.  The CO 
also noted that the applicant began anger management counseling in the spring of 2001 to assist 
with curbing his explosive outburst at home and work, but the anger management counseling had 
little effect.   For example, in June 2001 the applicant became angry at his supervisor, walked 
around  with  his  fists  clutched,  and  turned  his  knife  over  to  a  supervisor,  resulting  in  the 
applicant’s removal from the cutter.  The applicant was subsequently diagnosed with ADD.   
 
 
The  CO  stated  that  although  the  ADD  may  be  managed  with  proper  medication  and 
therapy,  the  applicant  had  not  responded  to  his  current  therapy  including  medication  and 
counseling.    The  CO  stated  that  in  his  opinion,  the  applicant  had  been  afforded  more  than 
sufficient opportunity to prove his worth to the military with lackluster results.   
 

On August 15, 2001, CGPC directed the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard by 
reason  of  unsuitability  with  a  JFX  (personality  disorder)  separation  code  and  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code.   

 
On  February  19,  2004,  the  Coast  Guard  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB) reviewed the 
applicant’s  request  for  an  upgrade  of  his  reenlistment  code.    The  DRB  members  voted 
unanimously to deny the applicant’s request.  The DRB’s final decision stated that the applicants 
discharge was properly carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy.  The DRB noted the 
applicant’s record of poor performance and his preexisting personality disorder (ADD), as well as 
the fact that up until his enlistment in the Coast Guard the applicant had taken Ritalin.3   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 7, 2003, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.  The JAG also adopted the facts and 
analysis  provided  by  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Command  (PSC)  as  the  Coast  Guard’s 

                                                 
3  The DRB also noted that prior to enlisting the applicant had served in the Army from September 1, 1992 until 
February 16, 1995.  He was discharged from the Army by reason of misconduct, with a JKA  (pattern of misconduct) 
and an RE-3 (eligible to reenlist except for disqualifying factor).    

  

 

advisory opinion.  PSC asserted that the application was untimely and that the applicant had not 
provided an explanation for his failure to file timely, except that he wanted to serve his country.  
 

PSC also stated that the discharge was in accordance with Coast Guard policy and noted 
that the applicant did not contest the findings of the DRB or allege that he had experienced any 
unjust prejudice.  PSC concurred with the findings of the DRB in their entirety and argued that 
the Coast Guard’s actions are presumptively correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  January  13,  2010,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  The BCMR did not receive a response. 
 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6) 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article 12.B.16. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual authorizes enlisted personnel to be 
discharged  by  reason  of  unsuitability  at  the  direction  of  the  Commandant  for  inaptitude, 
personality  disorders,  apathy,  defective  attitudes,  inability  to  expend  effort  constructively, 
unsanitary habits, alcohol abuse, financial irresponsibility, or sexual harassment.   

 
Article  12.B.16.b  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  unsuitability  discharges  for 
members diagnosed with one of the “personality behavior disorders … listed in Chapter 5, CG 
Medical Manual … .”  
 
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B) 
 
 
academic skill (e.g., Ritalin . . .) after age 12 is disqualifying.”  
 

Chapter 3.D.33 of the Medical Manual states "Use of medication to improve or maintain 

Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual lists the personality disorders that qualify a member 
for  administrative  discharge  pursuant  to  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  They  are 
Paranoid,  Schizoid,  Schizotypal,  Obsessive  Compulsive,  Histrionic,  Dependent,  Antisocial, 
Narcissistic, Avoidant, Borderline, Passive-aggressive, and Personality disorder NOS.  Neither 
ADD nor disorders usually first evident in infancy, childhood or adolescence are included in the 
list of personality disorders.   

 
Chapter 5.B.17. of the Medical Manual lists ADD under the heading “Disorders, Usually 
First  Evident  in  Infancy,  Childhood,  or  Adolescence.”    It  is  disqualifying  for  appointment, 
enlistment, or induction or a member diagnosed with the condition after entry into the military 
shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Personnel Manual.    
 
Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M1900.4B (Instruction for the Preparation and 
Distribution of the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214 
 

  

Article 4.a. states that the DD 214 provides a concise record of a period of service with 
the  Armed  Forces  at  the  time  of  a  member’s  discharge.  Section  5.  states  that  the  DD  214  is 
important  in  obtaining  veterans’  benefits,  reemployment  rights,  and  unemployment  insurance. 
Further, Article 1.D.2. states that the DD 214 must be accurate and complete in order for it to 
fulfill the purposes for which it was designed.   
 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  12.B.9.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  the  discharge  of  members  whose 
performance  demonstrates  they  cannot  or  will  not  contribute  to  supporting  the  Coast  Guard’s 
mission.  ` 
 
Separation Program Designator Handbook 
 
 
The Separation Program Designator Handbook authorizes the assignment of an RE-3G or 
an RE-4 reenlistment code with the JFV separation code.  The SPD Handbook states that the JFV 
separation  code  for  "condition,  not a disability" is appropriate when there is an "[i]nvoluntary 
discharge directed by established directive when a physical disability, which interferes with the 
performance of duty (Enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, obesity, fear of flying, et al.)."   
 

 

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.  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  discovered,  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  or  within  three  years  of  the 
issuance  of  a  DRB  decision.  See  Ortiz  v.  Secretary  of  Defense,  41  F.3d  738,  743  (D.C.  Cir. 
1994).  This application was submitted approximately five years after the issuance of the DRB 
decision  and  therefore  is  approximately  two  years  beyond  the  statute  of  limitations.    The 
applicant discovered or should have discovered the alleged error at the time of the DRB decision 
denying his request for an upgrade of his reenlistment code.    
 

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 asserted that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse his 
untimeliness and consider the merits of his application because he wants to serve his country.  

  

The Board is not persuaded to waive the statute of limitations because of the applicant’s desire to 
serve his country.   
 

5.  However, a cursory review of the merits reveals a probable error in the applicant’s 
reason  for  separation  and  his  separation  code.    The  applicant’s  record  should  reflect  the most 
accurate  reason  for  his  discharge  under  the  Personnel  Manual.  His  discharge  by  reason  of 
unsuitability  due  to  personality  disorder  is  not  accurate  and  the  record  should  be  corrected. 
Therefore it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations under the circumstances 
of this case. 

 
6.  The Coast Guard committed an error by listing the reason for the applicant’s discharge 
as  unsuitability  (due  to  personality  disorder)  and  his  separation  code  as  JFX  (personality 
disorder).  According to Article 5.B.17. of the Medical Manual, ADD is a “disorder usually first 
evident in infancy, childhood or adolescence,” and a basis for an administrative discharge under 
Article 12 of the Personnel  Manual.  ADD is not a personality disorder.  Article 5.B.2. of the 
Medical  Manual  lists  the  following  as  personality  disorders:    paranoid,  schizoid,  schizotypal, 
obsessive  compulsive,  histrionic,  dependent,  antisocial,  narcissistic,  avoidant,  borderline, 
personality  disorder  NOS,  and  personality  traits.    Additionally,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the 
military  record  that  the  applicant  was  ever  diagnosed  with  a  personality  disorder.  Therefore, 
unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder  as  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  and  the  JFX 
separation code are erroneous.4       
 

7.  Chapter 1.D.2. of the DD 214 instruction states that the DD 214 must be accurate and 
complete to fulfill the purposes for which it was designed.  As stated above, the Medical Manual 
does not list ADD as a personality disorder.   Nor does ADD fit within any of the other eight 
grounds for an unsuitability discharge under Article 12.B.16 of the Personnel Manual, which are 
inaptitude,  apathy,  defective  attitudes,  and  inability  to  expend  effort  constructively,  unsanitary 
habits,  alcohol  abuse,  financial  irresponsibility,  sexual  harassment,  and  not  adhering  to  Core 
Values.   
 

8.    Because  ADD  does  not  fit  within  any  of  the  other  grounds  for  an  unsuitability 
discharge  under  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  Board  must  determine  the 
narrative  reason  for  the  applicant’s  discharge  that  most  accurately  describes  his  situation.  
Chapter 12 of the Personnel Manual lists all of the reasons for administrative discharges, and the 
one  that  appears  to  fit  the  applicant’s  situation  most  accurately  is  discharge  by  reason  of 
convenience  of  the  government  due  to  a  “condition  that,  though  not  a  physical  disability, 
interferes with performance of duty; e.g. enuresis or somnambulism,” which is described in the 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook as “condition, not a disability.”   

 
9.    Further,  according  to  the  SPD  Handbook,  the  corresponding  separation  code  for  a 
discharge  by  reason  of  “condition,  not  a  disability”  is  JFV,  which  means  an  “involuntary 
discharge directed by directive when a condition [that is] not a physical disability . . . interferes 
                                                 
4  In BCMR No. 2009-211, the applicant was diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder, which the Coast Guard 
coded as a personality disorder on his DD 214.  The Board corrected that applicant’s record to show that he was 
discharged for the convenience of the government due to a condition, not a disability, rather than for unsuitability 
due  to  personality  because  under  the  Medical  Manual  and  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual separation  anxiety 
disorder is not a personality disorder.   

with  the  performance  of  duty.”    The  SPD  Handbook  offers  the  following  examples  of  such 
conditions:  Enuresis, motion sickness, allergy, obesity, and fear of flying.    
 

10.  By correcting the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge to convenience of the 
government and the separation code to JFV (“condition, not a disability”), the Board must review 
the correctness of the applicant’s RE-4 reenlistment code.  The SPD Handbook authorizes either 
an  RE-3G  or  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  with  the  JFV  separation  code.  The  Board  is  not 
persuaded to upgrade the applicant’s RE-4 reenlistment code based upon the evidence of record.  
In this regard, the Board notes that the applicant was not qualified for enlistment because he had 
taken  the  drug  Ritalin  from  age  12  until  age  20,  when  he  stopped  taking  it  without  medical 
authorization.  Further his preexisting ADD was disqualifying for enlistment.  It is not clear from 
the record whether the applicant withheld this information from his recruiter and was therefore 
able to enlist.  However, it is clear from the Medical Manual that he was not and is not eligible 
for enlistment.  Further, the applicant’s CO did not recommend the applicant for retention and 
stated that the applicant had been a problem for the crew and the command since he reported to 
that unit.  According to the CO, the applicant failed to improve his performance, attitude, and 
behavior even after being placed on probation.  In this regard, he failed to qualify as engineer of 
the  watch  and  to  qualify  in  damage  control.    The  CO  also  noted  that  anger  management 
counseling  had  little  effect  on  the  applicant’s  behavior.  The  CO  stated  the  applicant  did  not 
respond to his then-current medication and counseling therapy and that the Coast Guard would 
never see any return on its investment in him.  The applicant has a long history of ADD and is not 
qualified for enlistment in the armed services.  The RE-4 bars his reenlistment and prevents a 
repeat of the problems incurred by his command during his enlistment.  The applicant has not 
demonstrated an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.    
 

11.  In light of the above findings, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to 
change the narrative reason for separation shown on the applicant’s DD 214 to “Condition, Not a 
Disability” and the separation authority to Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual.  In addition, 
the applicant's SPD code should be changed to JFV.  The applicant has not persuaded the Board 
that his RE-4 reenlistment code is erroneous or unjust.    

  

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
12.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted in part as discussed above. 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record  is  granted  in  part.    Specifically,  his  DD  Form  214  shall  be  corrected  to  show  the 
following: 

•  Block  25  shall  be  corrected  to  show  Article  12-B-12  of  the  Personnel  Manual  as 

 

separation authority. 

code. 

 

separation. 

  

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

•  Block 26 shall be corrected to JFV (condition not a physical disability) as the separation 

•  Block  28  shall  be  corrected  to  show  convenience  of  the  government  as  the  reason  for 

The Coast Guard shall issue him a new DD Form 214 with these corrections.  Block 18 

shall be amended to state, “Action taken as result of BCMR.” 

 
No other relief is granted.   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn