DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-198 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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  June  21,  2010,  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). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  10,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  his  discharge  was  unjust  and  that  he  “want[s]  to  reenter  the 
Coast Guard to serve [his] country with honor and respect.”  He stated that he passed a physical 
upon enlistment but was unjustly discharged just a few weeks later when he was found unfit for 
duty because of a brain tumor. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a letter from his primary physician, 
who stated that the applicant’s “grade 2 astrocytoma”1 has been resected (removed) and that the 
applicant has been extensively reevaluated by a neurosurgeon and a neurooncologist.  The physi-
cian stated that he supports the applicant’s attempt to reenlist in the Coast Guard and that the 
applicant “is currently asymptomatic.” 
 

The applicant also submitted a letter from his neurosurgeon, who stated that the applicant 
underwent surgery on December 3, 2009, to remove “what proved to be a very low-grade tumor 
                                                 
1 In assessing astrocytomas, grade I is “reserved for special histologic variants of astrocytoma that have an excellent 
prognosis after surgical excision.  … At the other extreme is grade IV, glioblastoma multiforme, a clinically aggres-
sive tumor.  Astrocytoma (grade II) and anaplastic astrocytoma (grade III) are intermediate. …  A limitation of all 
grading  schemes,  especially  when  applied  to  a  single  biopsy,  is  that  astrocytic  tumors  are  histologically  variable 
from region to region, and their histopathology may change with time.  It is common for low-grade astrocytomas to 
progress over time to a higher histopathologic grade and a more aggressive clinical course. … The overall prognosis 
is poor.”  See Braunwald, E., et al., eds., HARRISON’S PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 15th ed. (McGraw-Hill, 
2001), p. 2444.  

of the cerebellum.  This tumor had extremely favorable features that are felt to be benign.  All in 
all, he has in my opinion, an excellent neurologic prognosis and he will not require any addi-
tional treatment.”  The neurosurgeon supported the applicant’s plan to enlist in the Coast Guard 
and stated that he could “see no neurosurgical contraindication whatsoever to him actively and 
fully participating in all activities related to his role in the Coast Guard.  This, I would like to 
emphasize, is not a malignant neoplasm; it is extremely benign and he is neurologically well.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  21,  2009,  and  was  discharged  from 
boot  camp  on  September  17,  2009,  for  failure  to  meet  the  physical  procurement  standards.  
Medical notes dated September 14, 2009, show that a brain tumor was revealed by an MRI that 
was conducted when, during a dental examination, the applicant was unable to lay flat on his 
back with his head straight without getting dizzy to the point of fainting.  He stated that he had 
first  noticed  his  dizziness  upon  lying  flat  more  than  six  years  earlier.    The  tumor  measured 
approximately 1.8 x 1.5 centimeters. 
 

The  applicant  received  an  uncharacterized  entry  level  separation,  pursuant  to  Article 
12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  due  to  “Failed  Medical/Physical  Procurement  Standards,” 
with an RE-3G reenlistment code, which means that he is eligible to reenlist except for a dis-
qualifying factor, which is a “Condition, Not a Disability,” and a JFW separation code, which 
means that he was involuntarily discharged for failing to meet the medical and/or physical stan-
dards for enlistment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On October 27, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopt-
ed the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel 
Service Center (PSC).  The PSC alleged that the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or 
injustice in his record and stated that if the applicant wants to reenlist, he must “go through a 
Coast Guard recruiter to initiate the accession process … and prove the disqualifying factor has 
been resolved prior to enlistment.” 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On November 25, 2010, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  The 
 
applicant alleged that at the time of his discharge, “it had not yet been determined whether the 
mass in my brain was a tumor or not,” so he should have undergone further testing and he should 
only have been discharged if the tumor was malignant. 
 
 
The applicant stated that his surgery proved that his tumor was benign.  He argued that he 
should not have been discharged because the tumor did not interfere with his function.  He noted 
that he had graduated from basic training and passed all of the medical and mental examinations 
to become an aviation survival technician.  In addition, he argued, “since no additional testing 

had been performed, it was impossible to determine if my condition would require either fre-
quent specialized attention or whether it had a high malignant potential.” 
 
 
The applicant stated that he has been to a recruiter who said “he would be happy to help 
fight my case to help me reenlist.”  However, he argued, his RE-3G reenlistment code is errone-
ous because his tumor did not interfere with his performance of duty.  (An RE-1 code would 
make the applicant eligible to reenlist without any review or waiver.) 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Chapter 3.D of the Medical Manual lists the physical standards for enlistment.  Chapter 
3.D.32.a. of the Medical Manual provides that “[c]urrent benign tumors (M8000) or conditions 
that interfere with function, prevent the proper wearing of the uniform or protective equipment, 
shall require frequent specialized attention, or have a high malignant potential, such as Dysplas-
tic Nevus Syndrome, are disqualifying.”  
 
 
Article 12.B.12.a.5.c. of the Personnel Manual states that recruits can be discharged for 
“fail[ing] to successfully complete established physical fitness accession standards prior to com-
pletion of training.” 
 
 
Article  12.B.20.a.1.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  “uncharacterized”  discharges 
for members with fewer than 180 days of active service who “[e]xhibit minor pre-existing medi-
cal issues not of a disabling nature which do not meet the medical/physical procurement stan-
dards in place for entry into the Service.” 
 
Article 2.D.1.a.5. of the Recruiting Manual states that an RE-3 reenlistment code “is not a 
 
bar to enlistment or reenlistment and shall not be, by itself, the  reason to reject a prospect or 
applicant. … A prior service prospect with a RE-3 (alpha character) code must prove the dis-
qualifying factor has been resolved before enlistment can take place.  Recruiters shall forward 
documentation and/or statements regarding disqualifying factors to [the Recruiting Command] 
for enlistment authorization.” 
 
 
Under  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  members  who  are  being 
involuntarily discharged for failing to meet the enlistment standards in the Medical Manual may 
receive a JFW separation code and either an RE-3G, RE-3X (motion sickness or nonswimmer), 
or RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) reenlistment code. 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 
The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  exhausted  his  administrative  remedies,  as  required  by  

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard’s decision was erroneous because at 
the point of his discharge, it had not yet been determined whether he had a tumor.  However, the 
medical  notes  dated  September  14,  2009,  state  that  the  MRI  showed  that  the  applicant  had  a 
brain tumor, which clearly predated his enlistment on active duty. 

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard’s decision to discharge him was erro-
neous because his tumor was benign and did not interfere with his function, prevent him from 
wearing  the  uniform  or  protective  gear,  require  frequent  specialized  attention,  or  have  a  high 
malignant  potential,  as  required  by  Chapter  3.D.32.a.  of  the  Medical  Manual.    However,  the 
tumor did prevent the applicant from lying on his back for a dental examination without getting 
dizzy, and he has not shown that he would never be required to perform duties requiring him to 
lie on his back.  Moreover, the surgical removal of the tumor no doubt required frequent special-
ized medical attention.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred by discharging him for having a pre-existing 
brain tumor.  With regard to the applicant’s allegations about the nature of the tumor, the Board 
notes that although the neurosurgeon wrote that the applicant’s tumor had “features that are felt 
to be benign,” his tumor was grade 2. 

33 C.F.R. § 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.2 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  not  have  been  discharged  and  that  his 
reenlistment code, RE-3G, should not reflect a disqualifying condition that interfered with his 
performance of duty.  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.3  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.”4  

The record shows that although the applicant passed the usual physical examina-
tions for enlistment, he was unable to lie flat on his back with his head straight for dental treat-
ment during basic training.  An MRI revealed that he had a brain tumor, as stated in the medical 
notes dated September 14, 2009.  In accordance with Articles 12.B.12. and 12.B.20. of the Per-
sonnel Manual, the Coast Guard discharged him for failing to meet the physical standards for 
procurement in Chapter 3.D.32. of the Medical Manual.   

Under the SPD Handbook, the JFW separation code and the RE-3G reenlistment 
code were the appropriate codes to assign the applicant since he was being discharged for failing 
to  meet  the  procurement  standards  due  to  a  pre-existing  condition.    The  Board  finds  that  the 
                                                 
2 The Board notes in this regard that the Discharge Review Board does not normally handle medical cases. 
3 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)).   
4 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that these codes are erroneous or 
unjust.   
 
7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  The Board notes, however, 
that an RE-3G reenlistment code is not an absolute bar to reenlistment and that under Article 
2.D.1.a.5. of the Recruiting Manual, the Recruiting Command evaluates the fitness for duty of 
veterans with RE-3G codes individually and may approve their reenlistment based on the needs 
of the Service. 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

of his military record is denied.   
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

  

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Megan Gemunder 

 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis