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.
CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-250
In this regard, PSC stated the following: In accordance with ALCOAST 252/09,1 the applicant’s record should be corrected to show that he received the separation code of JFY [adjustment disorder, not amounting to a disability] with the corresponding narrative reason of adjustment disorder. In light of the above, PSC recommended that the applicant’s DD214 be corrected by changing the separation code to JFY, the reenlistment code to RE-3G, and the narrative reason for separation to adjustment...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-250
In this regard, PSC stated the following: In accordance with ALCOAST 252/09,1 the applicant’s record should be corrected to show that he received the separation code of JFY [adjustment disorder, not amounting to a disability] with the corresponding narrative reason of adjustment disorder. In light of the above, PSC recommended that the applicant’s DD214 be corrected by changing the separation code to JFY, the reenlistment code to RE-3G, and the narrative reason for separation to adjustment...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2008-127
However, CGPC stated, the applicant was not diagnosed with a personality disorder, but with an adjustment disorder. of the Personnel Manual, and the separation code to JFV when the diagnosis of personality disorder was absent, uncertain, or not supported by inappropriate behavior.6 In this case, CGPC recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s DD 214 to show separation code JFV and Article 12.B.12. Accordingly, the applicant’s DD 214 should be corrected to show “Condition, Not a...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-053
Adjustment disorders are not personality disorders. 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 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...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-134
of the Coast Guard Instruction for completing discharge forms states that a member’s DD 214 should show a separation code and reenlistment code “as shown in the SPD Handbook or as stated by [CGPC] in the message granting discharge authority.” The narrative reason for separation on the DD 214 must be whatever is specified by CGPC. The applicant was diagnosed with an anxiety and adjustment disorder and his CO recommended his discharge pursuant to Article 12.B.12.a. In light of the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-002
of the Coast Guard Medical Manual lists the personality disorders for which a member may be separated. As the Coast Guard stated, “Condition, Not a Disability” would be more appropriate in this case because the applicant was discharged due to an adjustment disorder, not a personality disorder. Given the applicant’s diagnosed adjustment disorder and the provisions of the SPD Handbook, the Coast Guard should have assigned her the JFV separation code for having a condition that precludes...
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 014
- Spring 2009: Clinic recommended to Discharge the applicant based on the diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder, the command notified the member of the intent to discharge. - Two months later: Applicant was Discharged from USCG for Unacceptable Conduct. The Board voted 5-0 to recommend relief on the following items: Narrative Reason: Adjustment Disorder SPD code: JFY RE code: RE-3G The applicant’s character of service and separation authority stand as issued.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-216
Applicant’s Discharge from the Coast Guard On April 3, 2006, the commanding officer (CO) of the Coast Guard Training Center, Cape May informed the applicant that action had been initiated to discharge him from the Coast Guard with an honorable discharge due to unsuitability because he had refused to train. A majority of the DRB (4 of 5) voted to change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge from unsuitability to “physical standards,” his separation code from JNC (unacceptable...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-066
He recommended that the applicant be discharged under 12.B.12.3 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. The applicant’s CO recommended that she be discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant to Articles 12.B.12.a. However, since the appli- cant did not object to being discharged and the JAG is recommending that her record be corrected to show that she was discharged pursuant to Article 12.B.12 of the Personnel Manual, instead of Article 12.B.16., the Board finds the error to be harmless.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-165
Separation Code Reenlistment Code Narrative Reason JPD RE-4 Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure DRB Recommendation Article 12.B.12. states that following a first alcohol incident, the member is counseled about the Coast Guard’s alcohol policies and the counseling is documented on a Page 7 in the member’s record. As a result of the Vice Commandant’s action on the DRB’s recommendation, the applicant now has a JNC separation code for unacceptable conduct, “Unsuitability” as his narrative reason...