DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-018 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

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  application  upon  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s completed application on May 8, 2009, and subsequently prepared the final 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  August  3,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  general  discharge 
under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge or in the alternative to correct his record to 
show that he was discharged for medical reasons (physical disability).  The applicant alleged that 
he  was  being  processed  for  a  medical  discharge  prior  to  being  processed  for  discharge  due  to 
misconduct.    The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  6,  2004  for  6  years  and  was 
discharged on July 19, 2009 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.     
 

APPLICANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MISCONDUCT DISCHARGE 

 

The  document  notifying  the  applicant  of  his  commanding  officer’s  (CO)  intent  to 
recommend  him  for  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  due  to  misconduct  is  not  in  the  copy  of 
military  record  that  the  Personnel  Service  Center  provided  to  the  Board.    However,  the 
applicant’s April 20, 2009 statement objecting  to  the CO’s recommendation  for discharge is  in 
the record.  The applicant explained in his statement objecting to his discharge that on September 
10,  2007,  he  was  shot  twice  in  the  right  leg  and  once  in  his  right  foot  during  an  attempted 
robbery.  He stated that he was hospitalized for two months during which he underwent multiple 
surgeries, physical  therapy and rehabilitation.  He stated that at  that time he was still attending 
physical  therapy  to  help  with  pain  and  strengthening,  as  well  as  receiving  therapy  for  his 
depression.  He stated that he has major nerve damage and is taking medication to help alleviate 

 

 

the pain.  Also, he stated that he was diagnosed with PTSD and is taking two anti-depressants.  
The applicant further stated: 
 

I know if I am discharged with a general discharge I can go to the VA Office to 
continue to get medical treatment, but I think through what I have contributed to 
the Coast Guard is that I am entitled to more.  I feel I am not being treated fairly 
and  am  trying  to  be  pushed  out  the  door  with  nothing  to  show  for  my  time  and 
effort that I put forth while serving, whether it be when I was healthy and at full 
strength or injured but still serving.   
 
On  April  24,  2009,  we  have  a  change  of  command  ceremony  where  the  current 
[CO] will be leaving and a new one coming in.   My entire chain of officers . . . 
will be leaving and a new one coming in.  My entire chain of command, whether 
it  be  from  my  immediate  supervisor  to  the  current  CO,  will  all  be  transferring 
from  as  early  as  next  week  to  as  late  as  this  current  summer.    I  also  have  a 
situation where my primary doctor is transferring this summer and the secondary 
is  retiring  this  fall.      I  feel  I  am  trying  to  be  run  out  due  to  my  entire  chain  of 
command leaving soon and them not really being concerned with the severity of 
my situation, but the fact that my situation will be passed on to others after they 
are  gone.    Even  though  this  may  be  bad  timing,  I  still  should  be  given  fair 
treatment.      I  currently  have  a  medical  package  that  is  waiting  to  be  signed  and 
sent up, but I feel is being sat on due to this situation.   
 
I do have remorse and am truly sorry for the things that I have done wrong while 
in the Coast Guard and at this unit.  I have expressed that and have been formally 
apologetic to many members in my command and I have been forgiven.   I know 
that I’m not perfect and I know I should have been punished for the things that I 
did, but the thing is that I was punished and now that is all done with.  I shouldn’t 
be unfairly discharged for these things . . .   
 
All  I want is what is truly entitled to me from the United States Coast Guard.   I 
don’t feel  my time  and  effort  earned me solely  a General  Discharge and a letter 
out the door.   

 

 On  April  30,  2009,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  recommended  that 
Commander, Personnel  Service Center (PSC) discharge the applicant  from  the Coast  Guard by 
reason  of  misconduct  “for  displaying  a  pattern  of  misconduct  through  multiple  and  repeated 
violation of Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)” over a two-year period.  
The CO noted the following incidents: 

 

“(a) On 13 Feb[ruary] 2009, [the applicant] was the subject of non-judicial [punishment] (NJP) 
proceedings in which he was found guilty of violating Article 86 (unauthorized absence), Article 
90  (willfully  disobeying  a  superior  commissioned  officer),  Article  91  (insubordinate  conduct 

 

 

towards a petty officer), and 107 (making a false official statement) of the UCMJ.  [Forty-five] 
days Restriction and 45 days Extra Duty were imposed [as punishment].1   
 
“(b)  On 18 [March] 2009, [the applicant] was the subject of [NJP] proceedings in which he was 
found guilty of violating Articles 86 and 92 [failure to  obey order or regulation] of the UCMJ.  
[Thirty] days Restriction and 30 days Extra Duty were imposed [as punishment].2 
 
“(c)  In  addition  to  the  non-judicial  punishments  above,  the  following  administrative  remarks 
were issued to [the applicant]: 
 

a.   16 September 2006—CG-3307 (page 7) absent without leave, and  
b.  3 May 2005—CG-3307 documenting NJP Article 92. 

 
“[The  applicant]  does  not  adhere  to  the  core  values  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  constantly  fails  to 
meet expectations of a Coast Guardsman.   He has repeatedly lied to this command regarding his 
whereabouts and reasons for absence without remorse.  He is disrespectful of Coast Guard policy 
and  decisions,  leaving  base  while  knowingly  restricted  to  base  in  order  to  enjoy  local  festivals 

                                                 
1   The court memorandum for the February 13, 2009 NJP describes the applicant’s offenses as follows:   

Art 90 (2 counts): Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer on 11Dec08-17DEC08 [the 
applicant]  willfully  disobeyed  a  lawful  order  by  LT  [B]  to  inform  his  supervisor  of  his 
whereabouts and status in the event he is unable to report to work.  Art. 91:  Insubordinate conduct 
toward a petty officer.  On 11DEC08-17Dec08, [the applicant] willfully disobeyed a lawful order 
by  Master  Chief  [W]  to  inform  his  supervisors  of  his  whereabouts  and  status  in  the  event  he  is 
unable to report to work.  Art.-86:  Absence without leave.  On 11DEC08 [the applicant] absented 
himself and remained absent until 0705 18 Dec08 (7days) from his unit which he was required to 
be  at  the  time  prescribed.    Art.  107:  False  official  statement.    On  11Dec08-17Dec08  [the 
applicant]  knowingly  made  false  official  statements  to  LT  [B]  in  order  to  legitimize  his 
unauthorized absence from his prescribed place of duty.    

2    Although  the  court  memorandum  for  this  NJP  is  not  in  the  record,  an  earlier  page  7  warning  the 
applicant about his tardiness is in the military record.  This page 7 entered into the applicant’s record on 
March 5, 2009 states the following:   

You are being counseled for your inability to show up to work on time.  You have been verbally 
counseled in the past  not only by SCPO [S],  your supervisor, but also by  your command  master 
chief and branch chief on ensuring you show up on time and if unable to, at a minimum, call with 
your whereabouts and situation.  On 4 Mar 2009 you failed to report to work on time not call you 
supervisor to let him know.  Your supervisor, called you at 0707 that morning to find out where 
you were.  You informed him that you were getting breakfast.  After a brief discussion you were 
ordered to report to work at that moment, which you did.  You were verbally counseled once again 
by SCPO [S] about reporting to work NLT 0700.  On 5 March 2009 you once again reported late 
to  work appearing at 0705.  You  were once again counseled on reporting on  time.  Then, in the 
afternoon on 5 March 2009 you were to report by 1300, after icing your knee.  On or about 1315 
your supervisor once again had to call you about your whereabouts but was unable to reach you.  
You returned his call on or about 1325 stating that you had been in the rest room for the last 10-15 
minutes.  While  you  may have been in the rest room at that time that does not account  for your 
lack of judgment in being back to work at 1300 or placing a call to alert your supervisor of your 
situation  and  that  you  would  return  to  work  late.    If  this  pattern  of  tardiness  and  lack  of 
communication continues expect harsher treatment.   

 

 

 

 

and has no diligence in work assigned while constantly finding reasons not to perform.  He is a 
burden on the service and his shipmates and only sets a poor example for others.  I see no future 
for this individual within the service and do not think he would adjust to military life in any other 
branch of the military.”   
 

On May 5, 2009, the applicant acknowledged the proposed discharge and objected to it.  
He acknowledged that he had attached a statement in his behalf (statement discussed above), that 
he  had  consulted  with  counsel,  and  that  if  he  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions, he could encounter prejudice in civilian life.     

 
On June 2, 2009, the CO’s superior in the chain of command recommended that CGPC 

approve the CO’s request to discharge the applicant.   

 
On June 8, 2009, CGPC directed that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard 
with  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  by  reason  of  misconduct  due  to 
discreditable  nature  with  civil  or  military  authorities  under  Article  12.B.18  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.    CGPC  directed  that  the  applicant  receive  a  JKA  (pattern  of  misconduct)  separation 
code.  
 

APPLICANT’S MEDICAL RECORD 

 
 
The applicant’s medical record shows that in September 2007 he suffered gun shots to the 
right leg and foot and that he was treated with surgery and physical therapy.  Subsequently, the 
applicant’s primary care physician diagnosed him with PTSD on May 5, 2008, but stated that the 
diagnosis required confirmation by a psychiatrist.  An October 6, 2008 medical report noted that 
the  applicant  had  peripheral  neuropathy  but  that  he  was  stable  enough  for  a  fit  for  full  duty 
status.   
 
 
A January 15, 2009 medical note indicated that the applicant suffered from a painful right 
thigh.  According to a January 23, 2009 medical report, a pain management specialist prescribed 
amitrityline and recommended a TENS machine for the applicant’s home use.   
 
 
A  February  19,  2009  medial  note  indicated  that  the  applicant  complained  of  increased 
pain in his thigh and knee.  The primary care physician indicated that a medical board would be 
initiated.  In a February 25, 2009 medical note, the physician stated that the applicant’s increased 
pain  was  due  to  his  increased  work  activity.    The  physician  directed  that  from  February  25  to 
March 25, 2009, the applicant be allowed one hour of rest with ice to the leg to control pain “for 
every 4 hours of work.”  The medical note also indicated that the applicant had discontinued his 
counseling for depression due to distance that resulted from the applicant’s move.   
 
 
A  March  4,  2009,  medical  note  stated  that  the  applicant  reported  to  the  primary  care 
clinic “for increased stress and concern that he may hurt himself.”  The applicant stated that the 
stress was due to his restriction to the base, money problems, and separation from his wife.  The 
doctor  wrote  that  he  discussed  the  situation  with  the  applicant  and  noted  that  the  applicant  did 
not want to hurt himself,  but the applicant did not know what he would do if he had to remain 
restricted to the base.  The doctor recommended that the applicant be sent to a military hospital 

 

 

for a mental health evaluation and medication.   A March 9, 2009 medical report noted that the 
applicant underwent a medical board interview and that an orthopedic referral was recommended 
to evaluate his peripheral neuropathy.  The applicant was prescribed the drug Cymbalta.  
 

On  March  19,  2009,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a  psychiatrist  who  diagnosed  the 

applicant with PTSD.  The psychiatrist wrote the following: 
 

continued 

cognitive 

therapy 

behavioral 

[The applicant] does meet the DSM 4 criteria for PTSD related to his accident that 
occurred in 2007.  His depressive symptomatology, although strong at times, does 
not  meet  the  criteria  for  MDD  [Major  Depressive  Disorder]  but  instead  is  most 
likely  a  product  of  PTSD  combined  with  current  marital  stressor.    Would 
recommend 
combined  with 
pharmacotherapy  as  research  suggests  that  the  combination  of  therapies  is  more 
effective  than  either  alone.    I  do  feel  that  both  cymbalta  and  elavil  are  good 
choices  in  this  case  particularly  due  to  the  patient’s  pain  issues.    Would 
recommend titrating cymbalta to 60mg daily if needed.  Would also recommend 
titrating elavil as tolerated.  The increase of both of these medications should help 
improve  both  the  mood  symptoms  as  well  as  pain  issues.    If  symptoms  do  not 
improve  after  an  adequate  trial  then  perhaps  prolonged  exposure  therapy  or  eye 
movement  desensitization  and  reprocessing  therapy  as  well  as  a  trial  of  a  more 
researched selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for PTSD such as zoloft should 
be considered.  This being said, his psychiatric symptoms are not severe enough 
to  warrant  disposition  through  military  medical  channels.    He  is  mentally 
responsible  for  his  behavior  and  possesses  sufficient  mental  capacity  to 
understand  and  cooperate  intelligently  as  a  respondent  in  any  administrative 
proceedings that might involve him, if necessary.  At the present time he  has no 
disqualifying  mental  disease  or  defect  that  would  prevent  him  from  performing 
the duties of his grade.   [Empahsis added.] 
  
A  June  15,  2009  medical  note  indicates  that  the  applicant  came  in  for  a  separation 
 
physical.  The  medical  note  indicates  that  the  applicant  had  been  diagnosed  with  PTSD  and 
treated  with  medications,  with  pain  in  a  limb  treated  and  with  medications,  with  unspecified 
neuralgia, neuritis, and radiculitis, and with pain in his lower leg joint.  The medical note stated 
that the applicant was being discharged and should follow up with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.   
 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 1, 2012, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General  (JAG),  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommending  that  the  applicant’s  request  be  denied.    The 
JAG adopted the facts and analysis provided by Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) as 
its advisory opinion.   

 
PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  command  recommended  his  discharge  because  he  had 
committed  several  offenses  in  violation  of  the  UCMJ,  had  not  adhered  to  Coast  Guard  core 
values, and had consistently undermined  good order and discipline  at  his  unit.   PSC noted that 

 

 

the  CO’s  recommendation  was  approved  and  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  general 
discharge under honorable conditions. 

 
With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  claim  that  he  should  have  received  a  medical  discharge, 
PSC  stated  that  Article  1.B.1.e.1.  of  the  Military  Separations  Manual  clearly  dictates  that  a 
disciplinary  separation  shall  prevail  in  such  circumstances.    Furthermore,  the  applicant  did  not 
provide evidence of an error or injustice in his military record to justify upgrading his discharge 
from  general  to  honorable.    PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  administrative  separation  was 
warranted and executed in accordance with established policy    
 

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

In  March  2012,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard.     
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10  United 

 
 
submissions and military record, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2.    The  applicant  requested  that  his  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge, or in the alternative that his reason for discharge be changed 
from  misconduct  to  physical  disability  (medical).    He  alleged  that  he  was  in  the  process  of 
“getting a medical discharge before [he] was [discharged].”   
 

3.    With  respect  to  his  request  for  an  honorable  discharge,  the  Board  finds  that  the 
applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge under honorable 
conditions was erroneous or unjust.  Article 12.B.18.b.2.a. of the Personnel Manual (2007) states 
that “members may be separated when they have . . . two or more non-judicial punishments . . . 
within a 2-year period.”  The applicant was punished at NJP on February 13, 2009 and March 18, 
2009,  for  violations  of  the  UCMJ.    The  evidence  shows  that  the  CO  and  his  superior 
recommended  that  the  applicant  receive  a  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  because  of  his 
pattern  of  misconduct  and  lack  of  respect  for  Coast  Guard  core  values.    The  applicant  was 
provided with due process and notified of the proposed discharge and the recommendation for a 
general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions,  and  he  was  given  the  opportunity  to  make  a 
statement.    Despite  the  applicant’s  objection  to  the  proposed  misconduct  discharge,  PSC 
approved  the  CO’s  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s  discharge  under  honorable  conditions.  
The applicant has presented no evidence, except for his own statement, that his general discharge 
under honorable conditions is erroneous or unjust.    
 

4.    With  respect  to  the  applicant’s  alternative  request  for  a  discharge  by  reason  of 
physical  disability  because  he  was  being  processed  for  a  medical  discharge  at  the  time  he  was 
administratively  discharged  for  misconduct,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  applicant  was  ever 

 

processed  for  a  discharge  by  reason  of  physical  disability  under  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation  System  (PDES).3    There  is  evidence  in  a  medical  note  that  the  applicant  was 
interviewed for a potential medical board, but there is no evidence that any such medical board 
was held.  Nor is there any record of the medical opinions formed during that interview.   
 
 
5.    However,  even  if  the  applicant  had  been  undergoing  PDES  processing  to  determine 
whether  he  had  a  disabling  condition  that  caused  him  to  be  unfit  for  continued  duty 
simultaneously  with  his  administrative  processing  for  misconduct,  PSC  had  the  authority  to 
discontinue  the  PDES  processing  while  continuing  to  process  the  applicant  for  misconduct.  
According  to  Article  12.B.1.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (2007),  disability  statutes  do  not 
preclude disciplinary separation.  This provision states that if Commander, PSC is processing a 
member  for  physical  disability  while  simultaneously  evaluating  the  member  for  an  involuntary 
administrative  separation  for  misconduct,  Commander  PSC  suspends  the  disability  evaluation 
while  the  disciplinary  action  is  being  considered.    Furthermore,  this  provision  states  that  if  the 
action taken does not  include punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct,  Commander 
PSC  returns  the  case  for  PDES  processing.    In  this  case,  the  applicant  was  undergoing 
involuntary  separation  processing  for  misconduct.    Therefore,  if  PDES  processing  was 
underway,  it  would  have  been  proper  to  suspend  it  while  the  involuntary  administrative 
processing  continued.    Since  the  applicant’s  administrative  discharge  for  misconduct  was 
approved  and  he  was  discharged  due  to  misconduct,  any  PDES  processing  would  have  been 
terminated.  The action taken by the Coast Guard was authorized by the Personnel Manual and 
the applicant has not proved that it was in error or unjust.    
   
 

 

 

 
 
 

6.  According, the applicant’s request should be denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
3  The PDES is a Coast Guard structure composed of administrative boards and reviewing and approving authorities 
whose  common  purpose  is  evaluating  members  for  their  physical  ability  to  continue  the  required  performance  of 
their  duties  and  the  equitable  application  of  the  laws  relating  to  separation  or  retirement  of  members  because  of 
physical disability.  Article 2-A-39 of the PDES Manual (2006). 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
military record is denied.