DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2011-075 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  

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 January 19, 2011, 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  September  8,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD 214 (Discharge or Release from Active 
Duty  document)  to  show  that  he  was  discharged  because  of  a  “condition,  not  a  disability”  that 
interfered with the performance of duty.  In this regard, he is asking that his DD 214 show Article 
12.B.12.  (convenience  of  the  government)  as  the  separation  authority,  JFV  (“condition,  not  a 
disability”)  as  the  separation  code,  RE-3G  (eligible  to  reenlist,  except  for  disqualifying  factor 
(adjustment disorder)) as the reenlistment code, and “condition, not a disability” as the narrative 
reason for separation.   
 

 In  2007,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  of  an 
adjustment disorder under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.   At the time of discharge, 
his  DD  214  listed  Article  12.B.16.  (unsuitability)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  as  the  separation 
authority, JNC (“unacceptable conduct”) as the separation code, RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) as 
the reenlistment code, and “unacceptable conduct” as the narrative reason for his separation.  On 
September  25,  2009,  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  changed  the  applicant’s  separation 
code  from  JNC  to  JFY  (involuntary  discharge  due  to  adjustment  disorder)  and  the  narrative 
reason for his separation from “unacceptable conduct” to “adjustment disorder.”  
 

The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder while in the Coast Guard.  He 
stated  after  a  referral  for  psychological  counseling  following  a  domestic  violence  incident  in 
which  his  mother  was  stabbed  four  times,  he  was  diagnosed  with  an  adjustment  disorder  with 

 

 

anxiety.    He  stated  that  the  evaluating  psychologist  commented  that  the  domestic  violence 
incident was the cause of his disorder.  He stated that since that time he has had no anxiety, fear, 
or difficulty adjusting or adapting.  
 

 The applicant  contended that a member, like himself, may be separated from  the Coast 
Guard under Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual for convenience of the government if that 
member has a “condition, not a disability” that interferes with performance of duty.  He argued 
that Article 3.F.16.e. of the Medical Manual,  classifies adjustment disorder as such a condition.  
In  addition,  the  applicant  argued  that  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook 
authorizes JFV as the separation code for discharge because of a “condition, not a disability” and 
either  an  RE-3G  or  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code.    The  applicant  asserted  that  he  was  unjustly 
discharged with an erroneous separation code and an unforgiving reenlistment code.   
 

The applicant stated that he is seeking a correction to his record so that he can reenlist.  In 

support of his application, the applicant submitted the following: 

 
1.  The applicant submitted the final decision in Docket No. 2008-127, which was issued 
by  the  Board  on  November  25,  2008.    In  that  case  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  an 
adjustment disorder but  discharged under Article 12.B.16. (unsuitability).  The Board corrected 
that  applicant’s  record  to  show Article  12.B.12.a.12  of  the  Personnel  Manual  as  the  separation 
authority,  JFV  as  his  separation  code,  and  RE-3G  as  his  reenlistment  code.    The  applicant 
suggested that he is entitled to relief similar to that granted to the applicant in BCMR No. 2008-
127.  The Board made the following findings, in pertinent part, in Docket No. 2008-127: 

 
4.  The applicant’s DD 214 indicates that he was diagnosed with and discharged 
because of a personality disorder even though the applicant was never diagnosed 
with a personality disorder during his four months in the Coast Guard.  Instead, he 
was  diagnosed  with  panic  attacks  and  an  adjustment  disorder,  and  the  record 
indicates that he was discharged because of the adjustment disorder.  As stated in 
Chapter  5.B.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Medical  Manual  and  the  American  Psychiatric 
Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of  Mental Disorders, which the 
Coast  Guard  uses,  adjustment  disorders  are  not  personality  disorders.    CGPC 
admitted  this  fact  in  the  advisory  opinion.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the 
Coast  Guard  erred  in  assigning  the  applicant  the  JFX  separation  code,  which 
denotes  a  diagnosed  personality  disorder,  and  “personality  disorder”  as  his 
narrative reason for separation.   
 
5.  .  .  .    In  this  case,  CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board  correct  the  applicant’s 
DD  214  to  show  separation  code  JFV  and  Article  12.B.12.  but  “convenience  of 
the government,” which is the title of Article 12.B.12., as the narrative reason for 
separation . . . .  Therefore, the Board finds that, as in many past BCMR cases, the 
applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected to show Article 12.B.12. as the separation 
authority in block 25; JFV as the separation code … 

 
 
2.  The applicant submitted a copy of his  July 24, 2007 Department  of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA)  compensation  and  pension  medical  examination.    The  medical  report  noted  that  the 

 

 

applicant  demonstrated  some  attributes  of  bipolar  disorder,  but  he  did  not  appear  to  ever 
experience  a full manic  episode or major depression.  The DVA did  not  diagnose the applicant 
with any psychiatric illnesses.   
 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 7, 2005 and was discharged on May 3, 

BACKGROUND 

 

2007.   
 

 
Prior  to  his  discharge,  on  February  8-9,  2007,  the  applicant  underwent  a  command 
directed mental health evaluation.  The psychiatrist found that the applicant could not adjust to 
military life and that his difficulty adjusting, coupled with immaturity and past life experiences, 
had  caused  significant  anxiety  and  rendered  the  applicant  unable  to  function  in  a  military 
environment.  The psychiatrist further stated that “[d]ocumentation provided by the command of 
repeated episodes of poor judgment and inability to perform the duties required of him, confirm a 
diagnosis  of  adjustment  disorder  with  anxiety  and  work  inhibition,  chronic.”    The  psychiatrist 
recommended administrative separation.   
 
On  March  5,  2007,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  advised  the  applicant  that 
 
the  CO  had  initiated  action  to  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast  Guard  under  Article 
12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  CO  stated  that  he  was  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
command-directed mental health evaluation that found that the applicant was unable to adapt to 
military life and would be unable to perform his duties in the foreseeable future.  The CO stated 
that  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  would  decide  whether  the 
applicant should be discharged and if so, the type of discharge he would receive. 
 
 
to submit a statement, and did not object to the discharge.   
 
 
Guard under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  The CO justified his request as follows: 
 

On March 6, 2007, the applicant acknowledged the proposed discharge, waived his right 

On  March  12,  2007,  the  CO  asked  CGPC  to  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Coast 

Since  enlisting  in  the  Coast  Guard  in  June  2005,  member  has  had  difficulty 
adjusting  to  the  rules  and  regulations  which  govern  the  United  States  Coast 
Guard.    Member  has  been  awarded  non-judicial  punishment  twice  in  the  last  5 
months for several infractions of Article 92 UCMJ, failure to obey lawful order or 
regulation.[1]  [2]    Taking  into  consideration  the  member’s  past  performance  and 

                                                 
1  The CO included documentation stating that the applicant had been punished at captain’s mast for failing to report 
to Training Center Petaluma until after the expiration of liberty and for being one hour late in relieving the watch on 
23 August 2006.  The CO also stated that the applicant was punished at a captain’s mast on December 20,  2006 for 
separate  violations  of  failing  to  obey  a  lawful  general  order  or  regulation.    In  this  regard,  the  CO  stated  that  the 
applicant failed to provide a written statement to his supervisor regarding his involvement in a vehicle accident after 
being ordered to do so and he failed to maintain insurance coverage on his privately owned motor vehicle.   
2  The applicant’s military record contains numerous page 7s counseling the applicant about his tardiness.  One page 
7 counseled the applicant about bringing a weapon into the barracks, a violation of a Coast Guard regulation.  The 
page 7 notes that while the applicant was playing with the gun, he accidently shot himself in the foot.   

 

 

actions,  a  Command  Directed  Mental  Health  Evaluation  .  .  .  was  requested  and 
accomplished on 8 and 9 February 2007.  This evaluation consisted of a clinical 
interview and psychological testing.  The evaluation revealed that [the member] is 
unable  to  adapt  to  military  life  and  unable  to  perform  duties  in  the  foreseeable 
future.  It was his opinion based on the information provided that this member is 
not  fit for duty or worldwide qualified from  a mental  health perspective.    It  was 
recommended  that  [the  member]  be  administratively  separated  from  the  Coast 
Guard.   
 
 
On  April  5,  2007,  CGPC  approved  the  applicant’s  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.  
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  should  be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge  due  to 
unsuitability  under Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  due  to  apathy,  defective  attitudes, 
adjustment  disorder,  and  inability  to  expand  effort  constructively.    CGPC  directed  that  the 
applicant receive a JNC separation code and unsuitability as the narrative reason for separation.   
 
Discharge Review Board (DRB) 
 

Prior to filing his application with the Board, the applicant asked the DRB to correct the 
basis  for  his  discharge  and  separation  code  from  “unacceptable  conduct”  to  “condition,  not  a 
disability.”    The  DRB  panel  members  voted  to  change  the  separation  authority  from  Article 
12.B.16. (unsuitability) to Article 12.B.12. (convenience of the government), the separation code 
from JNC (unacceptable conduct) to JFV (condition, not a disability), the narrative reason from 
“unacceptable conduct”  to “condition, not a disability”, and the reenlistment code from RE-4 to 
RE-3G.   The Vice Commandant (reviewing authority for the DRB) did not agree with the DRB 
and instead left the RE code and the separation authority unchanged and changed the separation 
code  to  JFY  (involuntarily  separated  due  to  adjustment  disorder)  and  the  narrative  reason  to 
“adjustment  disorder”.    These  changes  were  made  to  the  applicant’s  DD  214  through  the 
issuance of a DD 215. 
 

As indicated earlier, the applicant was dissatisfied with the relief granted by the DRB and 
brought his case to the BCMR. He asked that the Board change the reason for his separation and 
related separation code to “condition, not a disability,” with an RE-3G reenlistment code.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 16, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum 
from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
PSC noted that the Vice Commandant did not agree with the recommendation of the DRB 
panel  and  modified  their  decision.    PSC  stated  that  during  the  period  that  elapsed  between  the 
DRB  panel’s  recommendation  on  August  27,  2008,  and  the  Vice  Commandant’s  decision  on 
September  25,  2009,  the  Coast  Guard  issued  updated  guidance  with  respect  to  the  separation 
codes and narrative reason to be assigned to members discharged because of an inability to adapt 
to military life.    
 

 

 

PSC  attached  to  its  memorandum  a  copy  of  ALCOAST  252/09  (Addition  of  the 
Adjustment Disorder Narrative Reason and Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes to the 
Separation  Program  Designator  Handbook),  which  was  issued  on  April  29,  2009.    The 
ALCOAST stated the following in pertinent part: 

 
3.  The  Department  of  Defense  recognized  the  need  for  the  additional  narrative 
reason  and  SPD  codes  that  better  fit  the  cause  for  discharge  when  a  member  is 
unable  to  adapt  to  military  life.    The  FY  series  was  created  with  the  narrative 
reason  adjustment  disorder,  specifically  for  members  diagnosed  with  an 
adjustment disorder not amounting to a disability.   

 

4.  Effective  immediately,  one  of  the  following  narrative  reasons  and  SPD  codes 
will  be  used  when  a  member  is  diagnosed  with  an  adjustment  disorder  in 
accordance with Chapter 5 [of the Medical Manual].    

 

 

  # 

# 

# 

D.    SPD  code  JFY,  narrative  reason  adjustment  disorder.    Involuntary  discharge 
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 environment.   

 

5.   The  discharge  separation  authorities  and  member  entitlements  will  remain  in 
accordance  with    .  .  .  12.B.16  .  .  .    For  enlisted  personnel,  the  re-entry  code 
assigned  can  be  either  an  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. 

 

6. Members separated with the FY series SPD codes will be authorized transition 
assistance benefits . . .   
 
PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  RE-4  reenlistment  code  should  remain  as  originally 
assigned  and  as  reaffirmed  by  the  Vice  Commandant.    PSC  stated  that  “under  the  prevailing 
circumstances,  CG-PSC  concurs  with  the  findings  of  the  Vice  Commandant’s  office  in  their 
entirety, as the Coast Guard is presumptively correct.”  PSC stated that the applicant has failed to 
substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  with  how  current  policy  and  regulations  are  carried  out  and 
enforced with respect to this administrative discharge.    
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
applicant for a response.  The Board did not receive a reply from the applicant.   

On  March  21,  2011,  the  Board  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 

 

 

 

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 submission and applicable law: 
 
 
1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 
of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was  timely  because  the  applicant  submitted  his 
application to the Board within 3 years of his DRB decision, which was issued on September 25, 
2009.   

 
 
2.  Although the DRB changed the applicant’s separation code from JNC to JFY and the 
narrative reason from “unacceptable conduct” to “adjustment disorder,” he maintains that his DD 
214  is  erroneous  and  he  asked  this  Board  for  the  following  relief:    change  the  separation  from 
Article  12.B.16.  to Article  12.B.12.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  change  the  separation  code  from 
JFY to JFV, change the reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-3G, and change the narrative reason 
from “adjustment disorder” to “condition, not a disability.”  For the reasons discussed below, the 
Board finds that the applicant has not proved an error or injustice in his military record.   
 
3.  The DD 214 given to the applicant upon his discharge from the Coast Guard correctly 
 
listed  the  separation  authority  as  Article  12.B.16.  (unsuitability/adjustment  disorder)  of  the 
Personnel  Manual.  However,  the  JNC  (“unacceptable  conduct”)  separation  code  and  the 
“unacceptable conduct” narrative reason for separation did not accurately reflect the basis for the 
applicant’s  discharge,  which  was  an  adjustment  disorder.    Prior  to  the  issuance  of ALCOAST 
252/09, and as indicated in Docket No. 2008-127, there were no codes in the SPD Handbook that 
accurately reflected discharge because of an adjustment disorder.  Therefore, for applicants who 
were discharged because of an adjustment disorder prior to the issuance of ALCOAST 252/09 on 
April  29,  2009,  and  whose  DD  214s  reflected  an  erroneous  reason  for  discharge  that  was  also 
prejudicial,  i.e.  personality  disorder,  the  Board  would  correct  those  records  to  reflect  a  more 
accurate  and/or  less  prejudicial  reason  for  discharge  and  assign  the  corresponding  separation 
code.    
 
 
4.    As  the  advisory  opinion  stated,  the  Coast  Guard  recently  recognized  that  the  SPD 
Handbook did not include codes that reflected discharge because of an adjustment disorder.  So, 
on  April  29,  2009,  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALCOAST  252/09,  which  amended  the  SPD 
Handbook  to  authorize  the  FY  series  of  SPD  codes  for  discharges  because  of  an  adjustment 
disorder.   ALCOAST  252/09  also  authorized  “adjustment  disorder”  as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation, maintained Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual as the separation authority, and 
authorized either an RE-3G or an RE-4 as the reenlistment code.   
 
 
5.  The Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard who is the approval authority for the DRB 
applied  the  new  regulation  to  the  applicant’s  DRB  application  and  directed  that  his  separation 
code be changed to JFY and the narrative reason be changed to “adjustment disorder”.  The Vice 
Commandant  left  the  separation  authority  as Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  the 
reenlistment code as RE-4.  The applicant’s DD 214 as corrected by the DD 215 is in compliance 
with the SPD Handbook, as amended on April 29, 2009, and accurately reflects the reason for the 
applicant’s  separation.    The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  did  not  object  to  his  adjustment 

 

 

disorder  discharge  when  given  the  opportunity  to  do  so.  Nor  did  he  submit  a  response  to  the 
advisory opinion.      
 
 
6.  ALCOAST 252/09 leaves the decision of whether a member should receive an RE-3G 
or an RE-4 reenlistment code for an adjustment disorder to PSC.  The applicant was assigned a 
RE-4 reenlistment  code  upon his  discharge  and that  was not  changed by  the DRB.  The  Board 
having reviewed the applicant’s record, which includes numerous page 7 counseling entries, two 
captain’s  masts,  and  an  adjustment  disorder  diagnosis  indicating  that  he  could  not  adapt  to  the 
military, finds that the RE-4 reenlistment code is not erroneous or unjust.  The Board notes that a 
July  24,  2007  DVA  psychiatric  report  stated  that  the  applicant  did  not  have  any  psychiatric 
illnesses,  although  he  demonstrated  some  attributes  of  bipolar  disorder.    However,  there  is 
sufficient  evidence  of  misbehavior  in  the  applicant’s  military  record  to  support  the  RE-4 
reenlistment code regardless of his post-service diagnosis.   
 
 
record, and his request should be denied.   
 
 

7.    Accordingly,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  his  military 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 James H. Martin 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

military record is denied.