DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2011-053 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 December 15, 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).  

 
This  final  decision,  dated  July  14,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade the narrative reason for discharge shown on his 
March 4, 2005, discharge form DD 214 from “Personality Disorder”1 to something that does not 
reflect a personality disorder; to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist) 
to  RE-1  (eligible  to  reenlist);  and  to  upgrade  his  separation  code  from  JFX,  which  denotes  an 
involuntary  discharge  due  to  a  personality  disorder,  to  JHD2  or  some  other  code  that  does  not 
reflect a personality disorder.   

 

                                                 
1 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)  (DSM-IV-TR),  p.  685.  
Types of personality disorders include paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, 
avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive.  Id.  “The diagnosis of Personality 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  …  .    The  clinician  should  assess  the  stability  of  personality  traits  over  time  and  across  different 
situations.”  Id.  at  686.  The  Coast  Guard  relies  on  the  DSM  when  diagnosing  members  with  psychological 
conditions.  See Coast Guard Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B), Chap. 5.B.1. 
2  Separation  code  JHD  denotes  an  involuntary  discharge  when  an  enlisted  member  is  disenrolled  from  an  officer 
training program. See Separation Program Designator Handbook. 

 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  after  completing  basic  training,  he  was  assigned  to  a  station 
and performed all of his duties at a level that exceeded his command’s expectations.  He alleged 
that he has never had a personality disorder, but a doctor diagnosed him with one after speaking 
to him for only five minutes.  The applicant did not submit any evidence to support his claims. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On January 6, 2004, at age 18, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Following boot 
camp,  he was  advanced to  seaman apprentice (SA/E-2) and  assigned to  a small boat  station  on 
one of the Great Lakes. 

 
On July 17, 2004, the applicant incurred an “alcohol incident” by drinking alcohol while 
underage  at  a  Maritime  Festival  Picnic,  which  he  admitted  to  a  chief  petty  officer  who  ques-
tioned him.  The applicant’s command documented the incident in his record, charged him with a 
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and took him to mast, but then dismissed the 
charge with a warning instead of punishing him. 

 
On  the  applicant’s  first  semiannual  performance  evaluation,  dated  August  31,  2004,  he 
received  an  Unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  and  was  not  recommended  for  advancement.    In  the 
various performance categories on the evaluation, he  received eleven average marks of 4 (on a 
scale of 1 to 7), three above-average marks of 5, and one poor mark of 2 (for “Health and Well-
Being”). 
 
On  December  21,  2004,  the  head  of  the  Mental  Health  Department  of  a  naval  hospital 
wrote a memorandum to the applicant’s command in which he recommended that the applicant 
be discharged because of a diagnosed Adjustment Disorder3 with Anxiety (309.24) and Personal-
ity  Disorder  NOS  (not  otherwise  specified)  with  schizoid  traits  (301.9).    The  doctor,  a  U.S. 
Marine Corps commander, wrote the following in pertinent part: 

 
b.  At this time, the conditions are sufficiently severe to impair significantly the member’s ability 
to  function  effectively  in  the  military  environment,  as  demonstrated  by  the  following  problem 
behaviors:   (i) his  significant  inability to consider others as independent, thinking/feeling human 
beings, which undermines his capacity to work as a member of any team, and (ii) his significant 
lack of interest in relating to others, which undermines unit morale and creates a potentially dan-
gerous incohesiveness in an operational environment. 

 

c.    The  following  risks  are  associated  with  retention  in  service:    his  inability  quickly  to  form 
trusting relationships places himself and those trying to work with him into increased danger and 
the likelihood of harm. 

 

d.  The disorder(s) are not considered amenable to effective treatment in the military setting. 

 

On  December  30,  2004,  a  doctor  for  the  U.S.  Public  Health  Service  concurred  in  the 
diagnoses  and  recommended  to  the  applicant’s  command  that  the  applicant  be  discharged 
because the applicant’s “[c]onditions are aggravated by active duty military service.” 
                                                 
3 An “adjustment disorder” is a psychological response to an identifiable stressor that results in the development of 
emotional or behavioral symptoms.  Adjustment disorders are normally temporary and disappear when the stressors 
disappear.  Adjustment disorders are not personality disorders.  DSM-IV-TR, at 679.   

 

 

 
On  January  5,  2005,  the  Officer  in  Charge  (OIC)  of  the  applicant’s  unit  notified  the 
applicant  that he was initiating the  applicant’s honorable discharge for unsuitability because of 
his “documented inability to adjust to military life, resulting from your medically diagnosed per-
sonality disorders.”  The OIC advised the applicant that he could submit a statement on his own 
behalf  and  rebut  the  OIC’s  recommendation.    The  applicant  signed  a  form  acknowledging  this 
notification, waived his right to consult a lawyer, and submitted the following statement: 
 

I  do  not  object  to  an  honorable  discharge  from  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard.    I  have  not  underlined 
(object/do  not  object)  on  part  4  of  the  memorandum  that  is  attached  to  this  document  [the 
acknowledgement form].  The specific [type of] discharge from the U.S. Coast Guard is not listed.  
So  I  have  to  respectfully  decline  to  underline  that  section.    I  do  not  object  to  an  honorable  dis-
charge[;] however I do object to anything other than an honorable discharge. 

 
 
The OIC submitted the applicant’s statement, his own notification memorandum, and the 
psychiatric report to  the Coast  Guard Personnel  Command (CGPC) with another memorandum 
recommending that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability because of the diagnoses.  The 
OIC noted the following: 
 

2.  On 8 December 2004, I referred [the applicant] to [an Army National Guard sickbay] for coun-
seling by [a chief health specialist], stemming from his admittances to me during a counseling ses-
sion of  his inability to conform to  military life,  his disgust of  or inability to  understand the final 
findings of a medical review board dated 07 December 2004,[4] and his desire to be released from 
active duty at all costs.  On 13 December, [the applicant] met with [the chief health specialist], and 
was then referred to Great  Lakes  Naval Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation based on his coun-
seling session with [the chief health specialist]. 
 
3.  [The applicant’s] recent performance shows he is unable to conform to or meet a satisfactory 
level  of  performance  in  the  following  Professional  Qualities  of  the  Enlisted  Employee  Review 
System:  Integrity, Loyalty and Adaptability.  Due to the medical diagnosis previously mentioned, 
it is my belief this separation request does not meet the requirements for a “probationary period” 
as  described  in  [Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual].    I  submit  this  request  asking  for  no 
consideration  for a second chance  waiver in accordance  with the  Commandant’s retention initia-
tives  based  on  [the  psychiatrist’s]  diagnosis.    In  the  interest  of  the  member,  and  good  order  and 
discipline, I strongly believe rapid administrative actions are required. 

 
On January 18, 2005, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded the OIC’s rec-
 
ommendation with its attached documents to CGPC and concurred with the recommendation for 
an unsuitability discharge because of the diagnosed personality disorder.  He noted that a second 
chance waiver “would not be a viable option in this case.”   
 
 
On  January  28,  2005,  the  District  Commander  advised  CGPC  that  he  had  reviewed  the 
discharge package and concurred with the recommendation that the applicant be discharged for 
unsuitability due to the diagnosed personality disorder. 
 

                                                 
4 Medical notes in the applicant’s record indicate that he complained of chronic fatigue in the fall of 2004 and tried 
unsuccessfully  to  attain  a  medical  discharge,  but  a  medical  board  found  him  to  be  fit  for  duty.    Aside  from  the 
psychiatric  report  and  complaints  of  fatigue  and  headaches,  the  only  medical  entry  of  note  in  his  Personal  Data 
Record is an entry indicating that the applicant’s mother had committed suicide in her early 30’s. 

 

 

On February 4, 2005, CGPC issued orders for the applicant to be discharged as of March 
 
4,  2005.    The  orders  state  that  the  applicant  was  to  be  honorably  discharged  for  unsuitability 
under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual with an RE-4 reenlistment code, a JFX separa-
tion code, and “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation on his DD 214.  The 
applicant’s DD 214 dated March 4, 2005, reflects these orders. 
 
 
Following  his  discharge,  the  applicant  applied  to  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB).  
On November 16, 2009, the DRB found that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable 
and recommended that no change be made to his DD 214.  This recommendation was approved 
by the Commandant.  In its report, the DRB wrote the following: 
 

The Board chose to contact … the applicant’s former Officer-in-Charge at [the small boat station] 
for further insight regarding the applicant’s performance and character while under his command.  
When the applicant first reported to [the station], things were going well; however they “started to 
crash” about the time the applicant was taken to mast for underage drinking.  [The OIC] stated he 
believed the applicant was shirking his responsibilities, and blaming his deteriorating performance 
on sleeping issues.  [The OIC] indicated the applicant did not respond to counseling or mentoring, 
hoping the sleeping issues would be satisfactory justification for simply standing a comms watch 
rather than  getting underway.  In summation, [the OIC] believes  the applicant  wanted out of  the 
Coast Guard and he got his wish. 
 
The  Board  members  did  not  uncover  any  administrative  oversights  or  failures  in  this  discharge.  
The  assignment  of  this  SPD  code  is  appropriate  and  the  narrative  reason  matches  the  circum-
stances that led to this member’s discharge. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 3, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board grant partial relief.  In so doing, he adopted the facts and 
analysis provided in an enclosed memorandum prepared by the Coast  Guard Personnel Service 
Center (PSC).   
 
 
The  PSC  stated  that  since  the  DRB’s  decision  was  issued,  the  Commandant  has  issued 
ALCOAST  252/09,  which  promulgates  a  new  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  for  separa-
tion  for  members  who  are  discharged  due  to  their  inability  to  adapt  to  military  life.    The  PSC 
stated that pursuant to this new policy, the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected to show sepa-
ration code JFY, instead of JFX, and “Adjustment Disorder,” instead of “Personality Disorder,” 
as his narrative reason for separation.  The PSC stated that although the new policy allows such 
members to receive either an RE-3G or an RE-4 reenlistment code, the applicant’s RE-4 should 
“stand  as  issued  as  per  the  prior  determination  made  by  CGPC-epm  exercising  administrative 
authority over the discharge of an enlisted member of the Coast Guard.” 
 
 
The JAG noted in his memorandum, however, that “based on the facts and circumstances 
 
of this particular case, the Coast Guard does not object to assigning the applicant re-entry code 
RE-3G” in accordance with ALCOAST 252/09. 
 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 7, 2011, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the applicant 

and invited him to respond in writing within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 12.B.16.b. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2005 authorizes the Commandant 
to  direct  the  discharge  of  an  enlisted  member  for  “unsuitability,”  due  to,  inter  alia,  apathy, 
inaptitude,  or  personality  disorders  as  “determined  by  medical  authority.”    Article  12.B.16.h. 
states that when a psychiatric condition is a consideration in the discharge for unsuitability, the 
member should be examined by a psychiatrist.  Under Article 12.B.16.d., prior to recommending 
a member for an unsuitability discharge, the CO is required to notify the member of the proposed 
discharge; afford him the opportunity to submit a statement on his own behalf; and, if a General 
discharge is contemplated, allow him to consult with an attorney. 
 
 
Under the Separation Program Designator Handbook, members involuntarily discharged 
by  directive  because  of  a  diagnosed  personality  disorder  are  assigned  separation  code  JFX  and 
either an RE-4 or RE-3G reenlistment code on their DD 214s. 
 

ALCOAST 252/09, issued on April 29, 2009, states that the Department of Defense has 
created new separation codes to address the situation in which a member is unsuitable for mili-
tary service because of a diagnosed adjustment disorder that does not constitute a physical disa-
bility but that prevents the member from adapting to military life.  The ALCOAST specifies that 
the new separation code JFY should be used when a member’s involuntary discharge is “directed 
by  an  established  directive  when  an  adjustment  disorder  exists,  not  amounting  to  a  disability, 
which significantly impairs the member’s ability to function effectively in the military environ-
ment. … For enlisted personnel,  the re-entry code assigned can be either  RE-3G or RE-4.  CG 
PSC (epm-1) will review the separation packages and make the determination for which re-entry 
code should be applied.” 
 
 
ALCOAST  125/10,  issued  on  March  18,  2010,  states  that,  to  align  Coast  Guard  policy 
more closely to that of the Department  of Defense, “[i]n cases  where individuals  are separated 
for cause and there is an option of assigning an RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment), RE-3 (eligible 
for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor), or RE-4, the RE-3 is the normal standard unless 
a  different  code  is  authorized  by  the  discharge  authority.”    For  example,  the  ALCOAST  notes 
that for members discharged because of alcohol incidents, an RE-3 code is prescribed unless the 
member engages in misconduct by, for example, incurring a DUI or refusing rehabilitative treat-
ment, in which case an RE-4 code is prescribed.  In addition, the ALCOAST eliminated the sub-
categories denoted by RE-3 code letters (RE-3F, RE-3G, RE-3P, etc.) so that only the code “RE-
3” appears on the DD 214.  
 

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. 
 
2. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).   

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.  Although the applicant in this 
case filed his application more than three years after he was discharged and received his DD 214, 
he  filed  it  within  three  years  of  the  decision  of  the  Discharge  Review  Board.    Therefore,  the 
application is considered timely.5 

 
3. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.6 

 
4. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his separation code and narrative reason 
for  separation  on  his  DD  214  so  that  they  will  not  reflect  a  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder, 
which he alleged he never had, and to upgrade his reenlistment code to RE-1 so that he will be 
eligible to reenlist.  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.7    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.”8  

 
5. 

 
Because  employers  sometimes  demand  to  see  veterans’  DD  214s  before  hiring 
them,  it  is  very  important  for  DD  214s  to  be  fair  and  not  to  unduly  tarnish  members’  records 
without substantial evidence.  In light of the highly prejudicial nature of a discharge by reason of 
“personality disorder,” the Board has often ordered the Coast Guard to correct the narrative rea-
son  on  a  DD  214  to  some  other,  less  prejudicial  reason  when  the  diagnosis  of  personality  dis-
order was uncertain or not supported by significant inappropriate behavior.9  On the other hand, 
the Board has not removed the narrative reason “personality disorder” from the DD 214s of some 
veterans whose inappropriate conduct supported their diagnoses.10 

                                                 
5 Ortiz v. Secretary of Defense, 41 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 
6 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
7 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)). 
8 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
9  See,  e.g.,  BCMR  Docket  Nos.  2009-106,  2008-127,  2007-221,  2007-028,  2005-082,  2005-045,  2004-044,  and 
2003-015. 
10 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2010-002, 2001-020, 2000-142, 1999-185, 1999-037, and 1998-099 in  which the 
Board  upheld  the  unsuitability  and  personality  disorder  discharges  of,  respectively,  a  veteran  who  was  diagnosed 
with  an  antisocial  personality  disorder  after  committing  various  offenses,  including  unauthorized  absences,  theft, 

 

 

6. 

 
 
Although  the  applicant  submitted  no  evidence  to  support  his  claim  that  he  does 
not have a personality disorder, the Board notes that the diagnosis was apparently made based on 
only one or two interviews.  According to the DSM-IV-TR, which the Coast Guard relies on for 
psychiatric  diagnoses,  “[t]he  diagnosis  of  Personality  Disorders  requires  an  evaluation  of  the 
individual’s  long-term  patterns  of  functioning …  .    The  personality  traits  that  define  these  dis-
orders must also be distinguished from characteristics that emerge in response to specific situa-
tional  stressors or more transient mental  states … .  The clinician should assess the stability of 
personality  traits  over  time  and  across  different  situations.”11    Presumably,  the  applicant’s 
mother’s  suicide  might  have  made  diagnosing  his  condition  accurately  even  more  difficult.  
While it may be possible to identify long-term patterns of functioning in one or two interviews 
under  such  circumstances,  the  Board  notes  that  the  only  misconduct  documented  in  the  appli-
cant’s  record  is  one  instance  of  underage  drinking,  which  does  not  support  the  validity  of  the 
diagnosis.  Therefore, the Board is persuaded that the validity of the applicant’s diagnosed “Per-
sonality Disorder NOS” is uncertain. 
 
 
The  OIC’s  memorandum  shows  that  the  applicant  was  recommended  for  dis-
charge primarily because he was unable to adapt to military life and had been trying hard to get 
out of the Service.  The psychiatrist’s December 21, 2004, report indicates that the applicant was 
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder because he could not adjust to the military environment, 
and the Coast Guard has recommended correcting his record to reflect a discharge by reason of 
“adjustment  disorder”  with  a  JFY  separation  code  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  252/09.    Because 
adjustment  disorders  are  normally  temporary  and  disappear  when  the  stressor  disappears,12  the 
Board believes that a discharge by reason of “adjustment disorder” is less prejudicial than a dis-
charge by reason of “personality disorder.”  Therefore, although this narrative reason for separa-
tion had not yet been authorized in 2005, the Board will direct the Coast Guard to correct his DD 
214  to  show  that  he  was  discharged  because  of  an  adjustment  disorder  with  the  corresponding 
JFY separation code. 

7. 

 
8. 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-
 
1.    The  PSC  recommended  against  making  this  change  because  the  RE-4  was  directed  by  the 
Personnel  Command  in  2005,  but  the  JAG  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  would  not  object  to 
upgrading the applicant’s reenlistment code to an RE-3G code.  The Board does not believe that 
the applicant  is  entitled to an RE-1 because he  clearly could  not  adapt  to  military life  in  2005, 
and nothing in the record indicates that he would adapt to military life any better today than he 
did then.  However, since the applicant was discharged, the Coast Guard has issued ALCOAST 

                                                                                                                                                             
disobedience, and drug use; a veteran who was diagnosed with a dependent personality disorder after going AWOL 
and  committing  various  other  disciplinary  infractions;  a  veteran  who  was  diagnosed  with  a  borderline  personality 
disorder and went to an historic tower, told a guard at the bottom that he was going to hang himself off the top with 
a dog collar and leash, and waited at the top until the police arrived; a veteran with numerous disciplinary infractions 
and  performance  problems  in  his  record  who  was  diagnosed  by  two  psychiatrists  with  a  borderline  personality 
disorder;  a  veteran  who  frequently  exhibited  inappropriate  sexual  behavior  over  a  two-year  period  and  was  twice 
diagnosed  with  “adjustment  disorder  with  disturbance  of  conduct”;  and  a  veteran  who  was  twice  arrested  for 
indecent exposure and diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. 
11 DSM-IV-TR, at 686. 
12 Id. at 679. 

 

 

125/10,  which makes the RE-3 code—without any letter specifying a subcategory—the default 
reenlistment code to be used except in cases where an RE-4 is appropriate because the member 
committed significant misconduct.  An RE-3 code is not an absolute bar to reenlistment; it allows 
a member to reenlist if he can prove to the satisfaction of the Recruiting Command that the con-
dition or circumstance that caused him to be discharged before his enlistment expired no longer 
exists.13  Given that the only documented misconduct in the applicant’s record is one incident of 
alcohol  consumption  while  underage,  to  which  he  confessed,  the  Board  finds  that  his  reenlist-
ment code should be upgraded to RE-3. 
 
 
Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  ordering  the  Coast  Guard  to  issue  the 
applicant a new DD 214 with separation code JFY in block 26, reenlistment code RE-3 in block 
27, and “Adjustment Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation in  block 28.   In addition, 
the following sentence shall be added to the remarks in block 18 because a duplicate DD 214 is 
being issued: “Action taken pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 

9. 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
13 Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, Chapter 2.E.1.b.5.a. 

 

 

ORDER 

 

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

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall issue him a new DD 214 with the following corrections made (not 

by hand and not by issuing a DD 215): 

 
  Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code JFY. 
 
  Block 27 shall be corrected to show reentry code RE-3. 
 
  Block 28 shall be corrected to show “ADJUSTMENT DISORDER” as the narrative 
reason for separation. 
 
  The following sentence shall be added to block 18:  "Action taken pursuant to order 
of BCMR." 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Dana Ledger