DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-144 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed  application  on  April  4,  2011,  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  January  26,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  for  unacceptable  conduct  on  March  30, 
2004, asked the Board to correct his record to reflect a medical separation.  The applicant stated 
that he should have received a medical discharge because he was required to see a doctor at the 
Coast Guard Academy, who recommended his discharge.  Regarding his delay in applying to the 
Board,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  was  unaware  that  he  could  contest  his  discharge  until  late 
2009, when his father told him he could. 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 

 

The applicant enlisted on November 5, 2002.  Upon completing training, he was assigned 
to a small boat station.  On July 25, 2003, the applicant was counseled in writing about failing to 
attend a mandatory medical appointment.  He was advised that any future incidents would result 
in  disciplinary  action.    On  August  1,  2003,  a  psychiatrist  noted  that  the  applicant’s  parents 
divorced when he was 6 and that the applicant’s father was imprisoned for homicide.  Regarding 
the applicant’s condition, the psychiatrist stated the following: 
 

[The applicant] is referred by his command because of concerns that he is not able to master the 
PQS  for  small  boat  crewman.    In  addition,  he  has  appeared  depressed  and  withdrawn  in  recent 
weeks and has indicated he wants to be released from the Coast Guard.  He presents after missing 
his  first appointment an  hour  and a half late  for this evaluation.  He leads  with,  “sometimes I’m 
happy with what I’m doing and sometimes I don’t care.”  He adds, “I get really angry sometimes 

 

 

when what I do is my best ability and it isn’t good enough.”  “The anger builds up and I can feel 
depressed.”  After having passed his COMMS quals,  the evaluee feels very stuck on getting past 
his boat crew qualifications.  He states, “I just can’t learn it.”  He feels used by the petty officers 
and that they turn around and pass direction for them to him.  He wants very much to return to a 
life where he is better paid, has his own place, and can be around people he likes.  He denies any 
mental  health difficulties prior to the Coast  Guard except  for some distress  when  he  went to jail 
for five days at age 16 for underage consumption of alcohol.  An event which may have precipi-
tated this evaluation occurred when he became angry with a cook in the galley over his being 10 
minutes late.  His command has tried to work with him by way of accommodating a switch from 
SA to FA and providing him with leave time.  The switch to FA required a two-point waiver on 
his  A.S.V.A.B.    He  denies  any  suicide  thoughts  now  or  ever  and  in  addition,  denies  any  violent 
thoughts toward anyone.  He has had one visit with an EAP counselor which he says did not help 
him.  He admits to being depressed but is able to pursue his interests when he is off work. … 

 

Discussion/Plan:    The  evaluee’s  capacity  to  master  new  information  from  books  is  extremely 
limited.    When  faced  with  cognitive  challenges  in  his  school  years,  he  simply  ignored  the  task, 
knowing  that  he  would  be  passed  on  in  spite  of  his  failures.    I  remain  that  there  may  be  some 
ADHD residuals in this young man. … He is not used to being held to a standard, and his solution 
to  his  dilemma  is  to  withdraw  and disengage.   He rejects  any talking therapy or  medication that 
might  assist  his  accommodation  to  Service  life.    When  pressed,  he  guesses  he  might  openly  use 
some drugs in order to get discharged from the Coast Guard.  While the prognosis for this mem-
ber’s satisfactory adjustment to Service life is poor, as long as he continues to do the job expected 
of him I would continue to work with him.  I recommend he not carry a firearm for the foreseeable 
future.  Should his work performance begin to deteriorate to the point where he cannot be trusted, 
or his depression deepens, or his anger becomes overtly manifested toward others, it might then be 
appropriate to recommend a discharge. 
 
The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with “adjustment disorder with depressed mood 

(DSM-IV 309.0)”1 and “schizoid/avoidant/paranoid personality traits.” 

 
On  August  12,  2003,  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  of  the  station  put  the  applicant  on 

performance probation with the following written counseling: 

 
Your performance has been well below standard as shown by your inability to qualify as a boat-
crewmember.  Your attitude toward your duties has also been unacceptable.  You constantly walk 
around the station giving off a disinterested attitude.  You need to get more involved.  You need to 
start  working  as  a  member  of  the  team.    It  is  time  you  motivated  yourself  and  got  certified  as  a 
boatcrewmember so you can start to benefit the unit and your shipmates.  You will be under con-
stant evaluation for the next six months to ascertain whether or not you can perform to the mini-
mum standards already set down for you.  You will meet with the XPO and me monthly to discuss 
your progress.   After this probationary period or at any time during this period  you  may be rec-
ommended  for  discharge  if  you  do  not  show  an  honest  attempt  to  overcome  the  problems  listed 
above.  There is no room for dead weight in today’s Coast Guard.  We all have a job to do and it is 
my  job  to  ensure  you  perform  to  the  level  we  know  all  of  our  members  can.    An  unsuitability 
discharge  does  not  look  favorable  at  the  point  in  time  when  you  try  to  find  a  job  in  the  civilian 
community.    I  look  forward  to  a  positive  and  steadfast  improvement  in  your  attitude  and  your 
performance. 

                                                 
1 Adjustment disorders are psychological responses to identifiable stressors that result in the development of emo-
tional  or  behavioral  symptoms.    Adjustment  disorders  normally  disappear  when  the  stressors  disappear.  American 
Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT 
REVISION (2000), p. 679.   

 

 

 

 
On  August  16,  2003,  the  applicant  was  counseled  in  writing  about  failing  to  report  for 
duty on time even though he had been woken beforehand to ensure that he could be on time.  The 
applicant  was  discovered  still  in  bed.    He  was  advised  that  further  infractions  would  result  in 
disciplinary action. 

 
On  September  24,  2003,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  mast  for  being  late  for  duty  on 
both August 21 and 22, 2003—i.e., failing to obey an order in violation of Article 92 of the Uni-
form  Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)—and for being  absent  without leave (AWOL) in  viola-
tion of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  He was awarded 10 days of restriction to the station with extra 
duties. 

 
On January 22, 2004, the psychiatrist submitted the following report: 

 

[The applicant] was first seen 1 Aug 2003.  He is referred back because he has demonstrated no 
motivation to progress with his quals or become a petty officer.  In addition, he has made despair-
ing  remarks  to  supervisors  about  not  wanting  to  continue  to  live  as  he  is  living  now.    While  he 
denies  that  he  has  a  plan  for  suicide,  he  states  that  he  has  thought  about  dying  but  finds  going 
AWOL a much better solution to his current difficulties.  On this  visit he states that “nothing has 
really changed.  Every day  has been the same—miserable every single day in the  Coast Guard.”  
He mainly thinks about getting out to go back home to get a better paying job in construction.  He 
has been discouraged that he is “always in trouble for something” and receiving marks of twos and 
threes  “no  matter  how  hard  I  work.”    He  did  not  want  his  name  put  back  on  an  “A”  School  list 
because he doesn’t “want the responsibility of the third class petty officer.”  He has struggled with 
his boat crewman quals and finds it “very hard to learn from the book.”  Moreover, he recalls that 
in school he was “mostly daydreaming.”  He adds he was not hyperactive, just “quiet  – can’t pay 
attention to things I’m not interested in.” … He continues to refuse any psychiatric help or medi-
cation for either his mood or difficulties focusing on learning material he is not interested in. 
 
The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with “adjustment disorder with depressed mood” 
(DSM-IV 309.0); “adult residuals of ADD, suspected”; and “schizoid/avoidant/paranoid person-
ality traits.”  The psychiatrist concluded the following: 

 
It is highly unlikely that [the applicant] will be able to accommodate to Service life and be an even 
marginally effective Coast Guard member.  His distress at maintaining a lifestyle  which he finds 
so disagreeable may eventually build to the point where he would go AWOL or make some harm 
to  himself  in  order  to  persuade  authorities  to  release  him  to  go  back  home.    I  see  nothing  to  be 
gained from continuing him on active duty.  I recommend that he be found unsuitable  [in accor-
dance  with  Article  12.B.  of  the  Personnel  Manual].    He  understands  the  action  being  contem-
plated.  He knows right  from  wrong.  He has no  mental or physical disabilities.  He refuses any 
intervention aside from discharge which might be helpful for him. 
 
On  February  3,  2004,  the  Station  CO  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was  initiating  the 
applicant’s discharge for unsuitability.  The CO advised the applicant that he had a right to object 
to  the  discharge,  to  consult  an  attorney,  and  to  submit  a  statement.    On  February  6,  2004,  the 
applicant  acknowledged  the  notification  and  his  opportunity  to  consult  an  attorney,  waived  his 
right to submit a statement, and noted that he did not object to being discharged. 

 
On  February  13,  2004,  the  Station  CO  sent  a  memorandum  asking  the  Personnel  Com-
mand to award the applicant an honorable discharge because he had been diagnosed as having an 

 

 

“adjustment  disorder  with  depressed  mood”  with  “paranoid  personality  traits”  and  “adult  resi-
duals of ADD [attention deficit disorder].”  The CO noted that the applicant’s “condition has had 
detrimental effects on the good order and discipline of the Station.  The CO noted that the appli-
cant  was  not  a  good  candidate  for  the  second  chance  program  because  of  his  continuing  poor 
performance. 

 
On  February  17,  2004,  the  Group  Commander  endorsed  the  CO’s  recommendation  for 
discharge.    He  stated  that  based  on  the  psychiatrist’s  recommendation,  the  applicant  “is  not  a 
candidate for the second chance program.”  The Group Commander stated that the applicant had 
failed performance probation while assigned to the station and that he himself had witnessed the 
applicant’s lackluster performance and lackadaisical attitude since the applicant had been trans-
ferred to the Group. 

 
On March 3, 2004, the Personnel Command issued orders for the applicant to be honora-
bly discharged for unacceptable conduct on March 30, 2004, “by reason of unsuitability due to 
apathy,  defective  attitudes,  adjustment  disorder,  [or]  inability  to  expand  effort  constructively 
under Article 12.B.16. [of the Personnel Manual].” 

 
On March 19, 2004, the applicant underwent a pre-discharge physical examination.  He 
was found fit for service or separation and signed a statement indicating that he agreed with the 
doctor’s finding.   

 
On  March  30,  2004,  the  applicant  received  an  honorable  discharge  for  “unacceptable 

conduct” under Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 25, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 
in  which he recommended that the Board deny relief in  this case.    In so  doing, he adopted the 
facts and analysis provided by the Personnel Service Center (PSC) in an attached memorandum.  
 
 
The PSC stated that the application is  not  timely and should be denied due to  untimeli-
ness.  Regarding the applicant’s request  for a medical separation, the PSC noted that the appli-
cant was found not to have any mental or physical disabilities when he was discharged and that 
the applicant did not object to his discharge.  The PSC stated that the “law that provides for disa-
bility  retirement  or  separation  (10  U.S.C.  [chapter]  61)  is  designed  to  compensate  a  member 
whose  military  service  is  terminated  due  to  a  physical  disability  that  has  rendered  him  or  her 
unfit for continued duty.”  The PSC stated that the applicant was not entitled to a medical sepa-
ration  because  he  was  discharged  due  to  a  diagnosed  adjustment  disorder  and  other  unsuitable 
personality traits, which did not amount to a mental or physical disability.  The PSC stated that 
the  “applicant  wanted  to  be  released  from  the  [Service]  and  embraced  the  opportunity  for  his 
separation when it was presented to him.”  The PSC noted that the applicant’s discharge is pre-
sumptively  corrected  and  argued  that  he  has  failed  to  substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  in  his 
record. 
 
 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  12,  2011,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to submit a response within thirty day.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Medical Regulations 

 
Chapter  5.B.3.  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  the  following  about  members  diagnosed 

with adjustment disorders: 

 
Adjustment Disorders.  These disorders are generally treatable and not usually grounds for separa-
tion.  However,  when  these  conditions  persist  or  treatment  is  likely  to  be  prolonged  or  non-
curative, (e.g., inability to adjust to military life/sea duty, separation from family/friends) process 
in accordance with Chapter 12, Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series) is necessary. 

a. 309.0 With depressed mood. 

 

Chapter 2.C.2.a. of the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual in effect in 
2004 states that the “sole standard to be used in making determinations of physical disability as a 
basis for retirement or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or 
rating because of disease or injury incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay.”  Chapter 
2.C.2.b.(1) of the PDES Manual states the following: 

 
Continued  performance  of  duty  until  a  service  member  is  scheduled  for  separation  or  retirement 
for reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fitness for duty.  This presump-
tion may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that: 
 

(a)  the service member, because of disability, was physically unable to perform 

adequately the duties of office, grade, rank or rating; or 

(b)  acute, grave illness or injury, or other deterioration of the member’s physi-
cal condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for separation 
or retirement for reasons other than physical disability which rendered the service mem-
ber unfit for further duty. 

 

Discharge Regulations 

 
Article  12.B.16.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2004  authorized  discharges  for 

unsuitability for military service for the following reasons: 

 
1. Inaptitude. Applies to members best described as unfit due to lack of general adaptability, want 
or readiness of skill, clumsiness, or inability to learn. 
 
2. Personality Disorders. As determined by medical authority, personality behavior disorders and 
disorders of intelligence listed in the Medical Manual, COMDTINST M6000.1 (series), Chapter 5. 
 
3.  Apathy,  Defective  Attitudes,  and  Inability  to  Expend  Effort  Constructively.  A  significant 
observable defect, apparently beyond the member’s control, not readily describable elsewhere. 
 
4. Unsanitary Habits. … 
 

 

 

Article 12.B.16.c. of the Personnel Manual states the following:  
 
Commanding  officers  will  not  initiate  administrative  discharge  action  for  inaptitude,  apathy, 
defective  attitudes,  unsanitary  habits,  or  financial  irresponsibility  until  they  have  afforded  a 
member  a  reasonable  probationary  period  to  overcome  these  deficiencies.  When  commands 
contemplate discharging a member for these reasons, they shall counsel the member that a formal 
probationary  period  of  at  least  six  months  has  begun  and  make  an  appropriate  Administrative 
Remarks, CG-3307, entry in the  member’s PDR that administrative discharge processing  will be 
initiated  unless the  member shows  significant improvement in overcoming the deficiency during 
the  probationary  period.  The  member  must  acknowledge  this  entry  in  writing.    Commanding 
officers are authorized to recommend discharge at any time during probation if the member is not 
attempting to overcome the deficiency. 
 
Under Article 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual, a member being discharged for unsuit-
ability for military service is entitled to (a) notification of the specific reason for discharge under 
Article  12.B.16.b.;  (b)  an  opportunity  to  submit  a  written  statement;  and  (c)  an  opportunity  to 
consult an attorney “if the member’s character of service warrants a general discharge.” 
 
 
Under  the  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  Handbook,  which  lists  the  possible 
codes and reasons for discharge entered on a DD 214, members being involuntarily discharged 
pursuant  to Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel  Manual  when they  “perform  acts  of unacceptable 
conduct  (i.e.,  moral  and/or  professional  dereliction)”  may  be  discharged  with  an  RE-4  reentry 
code, a JNC separation code, and “Unacceptable Conduct” as the narrative reason for separation.   
 

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.” 
 

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  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  
The Board notes that the applicant did not apply to the Discharge Review Board, but that board 
does not have jurisdiction over the application because it has no authority to award the applicant 
the disabled severance or retired pay that would be due as a result of a medical separation.   
 

2. 

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 in his record.  The applicant was 
discharged  for  “Unacceptable  Conduct”  and  signed  his  DD  214  on  March  30,  2004,  and  thus 

 

 

knew that he had not received a medical separation on that date.  Therefore, his application is not 
timely. 
 

3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  an 
application  if  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 to determine 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 instructed 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. 

Regarding the delay of his application, the applicant explained stated that he did 
not know until 2009 that he could contest his discharge.  The Board does not find this explana-
tion compelling because he failed to show that anything prevented him from complaining about 
his discharge and learning about the Board more promptly. 

 
5. 

A  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  this  case  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  request 
lacks merit.  The record shows that the applicant was discharged because of an “adjustment dis-
order with depressed mood” that made him unable to adapt to military life.  Under Chapter 5.B.3. 
of the Medical Manual,  members diagnosed with this condition are not processed for disability 
separations  but  are  instead,  like  the  applicant,  processed  for  administrative  separations  under 
Article 12.B. of the Personnel  Manual.   Under Chapter 2.C.2.a. of the PDES Manual,  the only 
reason for processing a member for a disability separation is unfitness for duty because of a dis-
ability, but the psychiatrist expressly stated that the applicant had no mental or physical disability 
and that he refused treatment for his diagnosed adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  The 
applicant  submitted  nothing  to  refute  these  records,  which  are  presumptively  correct  under  33 
C.F.R.  §  52.24(b).    See  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir.  1992)  (citing 
Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), for the required presumption, absent 
evidence to the contrary, that Government officials have carried out their duties “correctly, law-
fully,  and  in  good  faith.”).    Based  on  the  record  before  it,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s 
request for a medical/disability separation cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
6. 

Although  he  was  discharged  because  of  an  adjustment  disorder  that  made  him 
unable to adapt to military life, the applicant’s DD 214 shows that he was discharged for “unac-
ceptable  conduct.”    Because  the  applicant  was  repeatedly  late  for  duty  and  the  definition  of 
“unacceptable  conduct”  includes  “professional  dereliction,”  the  applicant’s  DD  214  is  not 
technically  inaccurate,2  even  though  “professional  dereliction”  seems  slightly  overblown  as  a 
term  applied to  a 22-year-old  non-rate  with an adjustment disorder, learning disorder,  and apa-
thetic  attitude.    When  the  applicant  was  discharged  in  2004,  however,  there  was  no  separation 
code  specifically  for  members  unable  to  adjust  to  military  life.    Now  there  is,  pursuant  to 
ALCOAST 252/09.  Therefore, the applicant’s DD 214 could be corrected to show that he was 
discharged  because  of  an  “adjustment  disorder,”  instead  of  “unacceptable  conduct.”    However, 

                                                 
2 See, e.g., final decisions in BCMR Docket Nos. 2005-041, 2009-197, and 2010-026, in which the applicants had 
been  discharged  and  assigned  the  JNC  separation  code  after  being  counseled  about  lackadaisical  attitudes,  poor 
performance, failing to obey orders, etc., as young non-rates and petty officers. 

 

 

the applicant did not request this relief and it is not clear whether he would want his diagnosis 
printed on his DD 214. 

 
7. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  medical  separation  should  be  denied 
because of its untimeliness and lack of merit, but if within six months of the date of this decision, 
he  submits  a  new  application  requesting  a  discharge  due  to  “adjustment  disorder,”  instead  of 
“unacceptable conduct,” the Board will consider the request on the merits. 
 

 

 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 
military record is denied, but if within six months of the date of this decision, he submits a new 
application  requesting  a  discharge  due  to  “adjustment  disorder,”  instead  of  “unacceptable 
conduct,” the Board will consider the request on the merits. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

  

 
 
 Katia Cervoni 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Ashley A. Darbo