DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-235 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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 August 24, 2010, 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  June  3,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-3P (eligible to 
reenlist with waiver for physical disability) to RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment).   The applicant 
enlisted in the Coast Guard on August 21, 1990, and was honorably discharged on March 25, 
1991, because of a physical disability, with a JFR1 separation code and an RE-3P reenlistment 
code.     
 
 
The applicant asked to have his reenlistment code changed so that he can enlist in the 
Army National Guard.  He was discharged in 1991 due to a kidney ailment.  He alleged that 
because  of  his  immaturity  he  did  not  understand  the  options  available  during  the  physical 
disability evaluation system (PDES) processing of his case.  He also stated that at the time of his 
discharge he had had only one occurrence of the kidney ailment and that he has not had another 
one.  He stated that he is currently in the best physical condition of his life, as proven by his 
March  2010  physical  examination,  a  copy  of  which  he  submitted  to  the  Board.    He  also 
submitted  a  letter  from  an  Army  officer  attesting  to  his  character,  integrity,  patriotism  and 
motivation.  He stated that he has attempted to enlist in the Army and Marine Corps over the last 
19 years with no success.   

                                                 
1      A  JFR  separation  code  means  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  because  a  physical  disability  evaluation 
proceeding determined that he had a physical disability that did not exist prior to entry on active duty.   
 

 

 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in 1991, but argued that it is in 
the interest of justice to consider his application even though more than three years has elapsed 
since he discovered the error because he never had a chance to serve his country and because he 
is pursuing career in law enforcement.  He also noted his attempts to reenlist, which were not 
successful allegedly because of his lack of knowledge and documentation.    

BACKGROUND 

 
  On  October  10,  1990,  a  medical  board  found  that  the  applicant  suffered  from 
“Presumptive IGA Nephropathy (Idiopathic Recurrent Renal Hematuria)” and “Atypical Anxiety 
Disorder . . . with Avoidant Personality Disorder . . .”     

 
On  November  1,  1990,  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (CPEB)  considered  the 
applicant’s  case  and  found  that  he  was  unfit  for  duty  due  to  “presumptive  IGA  Neuropathy 
(Idiopathic  Recurrent  Renal  Hematuria)  -  Rated  analogous  to  Nephritis,  Chronic-mild.”      The 
CPEB rated this condition as 10% disabling.  The CPEB also found that the applicant suffered 
from General Anxiety Disorder which it rated as 0% disabling.   

 
The  applicant  with  the  counseling  of  a  law  specialist  accepted  the  findings  and 
recommendations of the CPEB on November 14, 1990.  The Chief of the Office of Personnel 
Training approved the CPEB findings on November 28, 1990 and directed that the applicant be 
discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  “without  severance  pay,  by  reason  of  less  than  six  months’ 
service in accordance with Section 1212, Chapter 61, of title 10 of the U.S. Code.”   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On December 14, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    The  JAG 
adopted the facts and analysis provided by Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) as the 
Coast Guard's advisory opinion.  

 
PSC noted that although the application was not timely, the Board should still consider it 
because of its merits.  PSC stated that the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard and 
assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code in accordance with policy.  PSC also stated the applicant is 
eligible to reenlist except for a disqualifying physical disability, but he must seek reenlistment 
through  the  recruiting  process  and  persuade  a  recruiter  that  his  physical  disability  has  been 
resolved.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On December 20, 2010, 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 applicant admitted that 
he discovered the alleged error at the time of his discharge in 1991.  However, he argued that the 
Board should waive the three-year statute of limitations because he has attempted to reenlist but 
lacked the knowledge and documentation to prove that he has no disqualifying conditions.  He 
did not explain why he could not have obtained the knowledge and documentation sooner.  The 
applicant's reason for not filing his application sooner is not persuasive.    
 

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.  With respect to the merits, the Board finds that the applicant is not likely to prevail.   
The applicant was discharged due to a physical disability.    He did not object to the discharge at 
the time of his separation.  The fact that he has a current physical examination showing that he 
has no kidney problems does not prove that his diagnosis 19 years ago was incorrect.    Nor has 
he  shown  the  reenlistment  code  to  be  erroneous.    It  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  Army  National  Guard.    The  Board  notes  that  an  RE-3P  code  is  not  a  bar  to 
reenlistment, but means that the applicant must be granted a waiver to reenlist.  To be considered 
for enlistment in the Armed Forces, the applicant should apply through his local recruiting office 
and present them with the evidence he has presented to this Board.  The Board notes that before 
applying  for  reenlistment  the  applicant  may  want  to  consider  addressing  his  then-diagnosed 
General Anxiety Disorder, which the CPEB also found unfitting for military service.    
 

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 because it is untimely.    

 
 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.