DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-055 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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,  including  the  applicant’s  military  and  medical  records,  on  January  9, 
2012,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  prepare 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  September  7,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  for  misconduct  on  June  15,  200X,  asked 
the Board to correct her record to reflect a medical retirement instead.  The applicant submitted 
the following claims supporting her request for a medical retirement: 
 

1.  Her misconduct discharge was not processed in accordance with regulations. 
2.  She was being evaluated by a medical board when she was discharged prematurely. 
3.  Her disabilities are a direct result of an assault by a member of the Coast Guard. 
4.  She continues to suffer from these long-term service-connected disabilities. 

 

The applicant initially provided no further explanation of these claims.  She alleged that 
she discovered the error in her record on March 15, 2011, because before that date she “was not 
aware that her discharge involved regulatory violations until she spoke with an advocate.” 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

On  August  9,  200X,  the  applicant  enlisted  on  active  duty  for  four  years.    After 
completing boot camp, she was assigned to Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, a part of Sector Xxxxxxx.  While 
stationed there, her commanding officer, a captain who was the Sector Commander, entered the 
following undated Page 7 (counseling form CG-3307) in her record, which she signed: 

 

 

 

On  this  date  you  were  formally  counseled  regarding  your  failure  to  comply  with  COMDTINST 
1000.6A, Personnel Manual, Interpersonal Relationships within the Coast Guard, in that you were 
engaged  in  an  inappropriate  relationship  from  November  200X  through  December  200X.    This 
relationship was deemed unacceptable because you were involved in a romantic relationship with 
your direct supervisor, an E-4 at Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, which was a violation of Chapter 8.H.2.f. of the 
Personnel Manual, Unacceptable Romantic Relationships. 
 
Furthermore, it was later discovered through investigation by Coast Guard Investigative Services, 
that  you  were  involved  in  yet  another  inappropriate  relationship  with  an  E-3  assigned  to  Xxxx 
Xxxxxxxx.  You were in violation of the COMDT’s Unacceptable Romantic Relationships policy, 
in that for a period of time, you maintained a romantic relationship with the E-3 at Xxxxxxxx, a 
unit of less than 60 members in size. 
 
Although you were the junior member in at least one of these relationships, you are reminded that 
this behavior is unacceptable and is a violation of COMDT’s policy and a disruption of good order 
and discipline of the CG  unit.  You shall become adeptly  familiar  with policy and the standards 
that govern your actions within the U.S. Coast Guard.  Keep in mind that any further violations of 
this policy may lead to further administrative actions. 
 
On March 20, 200X, the applicant sought counseling.  She reported to the counselor that 
she  had  been  assigned  to  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxx  for  about  6  or  7  months  and  that  a  month  after  she 
arrived  at  the  xxxx,  she began  experiencing  difficulties  with  her  supervisor,  PO  X,  who  yelled 
and  cussed  at  her,  grabbed  her  behind,  tried  to  kiss  her,  entered  her  room,  slammed  her  up 
against the wall, and smacked her across the face.  She told the counselor that a higher ranking 
officer witnessed this incident and talked to PO X and that PO X then threatened to kill her.  She 
alleged that her coworkers encouraged her to flirt with PO X “so we can all have a good day.”  
As a result of the incident,  PO X had been reassigned to  another unit.  However, the  applicant 
told the counselor that she was still afraid of him and was sleeping with a knife under her pillow.  
The counselor noted that the applicant’s possible diagnoses were Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotions. 
 

On April 13, 200X, the applicant was referred for a psychological evaluation because she 
was complaining of past verbal and physical harassment by a Coast Guard member and had been 
diagnosed with possible PTSD, and her “chain of command reported concern that the patient was 
experiencing paranoid ideation with regard to the alleged abuse.”  The applicant complained to 
the doctor of crying and having sleeping and eating problems.  She stated that PO X had “forced 
her to touch his genitalia” and hit her when she refused, knocked her over by thrusting his pelvis 
into her from behind,  yelled in her face at the top of his lungs, called her “bitch” and “piece of 
shit,” had the keys to her room and would enter her room announced, and told her she had “no 
fuckin’ core values” when she refused to go to bed with him.  The applicant told the doctor that 
she had not reported these incidents because she did not want to ruin anyone’s career.  However, 
she  told  the  doctor,  PO  X’s  harassment  became  known  because  someone  reported  it  when  she 
was going to be transferred after PO X had reported her for having a romantic relationship with 
another male colleague.  The applicant told the doctor that her transfer fell through because PO 
X’s harassment was investigated and he was transferred.  Nevertheless, she told the doctor, she 
was still afraid of PO X and was being blamed and taunted by her coworkers.  The applicant was 
diagnosed with PTSD.  The psychologist recommended that she be transferred to a new unit and 
that a medical board be convened. 
 

 

 

The  applicant  was  transferred  to  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxxxx,  and  a  doctor  prepared  a  medical 
board report.  The applicant told the doctor that she had been having nightly nightmares and had 
not been sleeping or eating well for several months because her supervisor had sexually harassed 
her and hit her and she had initiated an investigation that had caused trouble for other members.  
She  stated  that  other  members  of  the  command  continued  to  harass  her,  and  her  new  female 
supervisor would not leave her alone.  She no longer socialized with anyone and had decided to 
avoid men and Coast Guard members in general.  She said that she experienced  headaches and 
chest  pain  whenever  a  man wanted to  talk to  her.   After a  few weeks, the applicant was trans-
ferred again to Sector Xxxx in Xxxxxxx.  

 
On May 15, 200X, the applicant underwent psychological testing.  A Personality Assess-
ment Inventory revealed a significantly unhappy, moody, tense, suspicious, and pessimistic per-
son who was depressed, discouraged, and withdrawn.  Her responses indicated she had decreased 
energy,  appetite,  sleep,  and  sexual  interest.    In  addition,  she  “is  likely  to  be  a  socially  isolated 
individual,”  she  may  have  “particularly  difficulty  interpreting  the  normal  nuances  of  interper-
sonal  behavior  that  provide  the  meaning  to  personal  relationships,”  and  she  “demonstrates  an 
unusual degree of concern about physical functioning and health matters” and “reports symptoms 
consistent with both conversion and somatization disorders.”  Regarding the validity of the test-
ing,  the  report  notes  that  certain  responses  indicated  that  the  applicant  was  defensive,  that  she 
“may  not  have  answered  in  a  completely  forthright  manner,”  and  that  she  portrayed  herself  as 
being  “relatively  free  of  shortcomings  to  which  most  individuals  will  admit,  and  she  appears 
somewhat reluctant to recognize faults or problems in herself.”  The test resulted in “diagnostic 
considerations” of PTSD and major depression and possibly one or more of the following:  panic 
disorder  without  agoraphobia,  generalized  anxiety  disorder,  somatization  disorder,  undifferen-
tiated somatoform disorder, and mixed personality disorder with borderline, paranoid, dependent, 
and passive-aggressive features. 

 
On June 9, 200X, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to the medi-
cal board.  The applicant told the doctor that PO X would drink excessively, harass her, and try 
to arrange circumstances so that they would be alone together.  This behavior angered and scared 
her.  PO X also brushed against her a lot, grabbed her, and became jealous whenever he saw her 
interacting with  other men.  She began to  sleep  with  a knife under her bed because he had the 
keys to her room, and she had become afraid and anxious of all men.  The applicant reported that 
her symptoms had improved with medication, her sleep had improved, and she was beginning to 
enjoy  recreational  activities.    However,  the  psychiatrist  noted  that  she  “still  does  not  feel  safe 
around Coast Guard males and she still wants out of the Coast Guard.”   The psychiatrist noted 
her prior diagnoses but diagnosed the applicant with only an anxiety disorder.   

 
On  July  20,  200X,  the  applicant  underwent  a  psychological  evaluation  pursuant  to  the 
medical board.  She told the doctor that she was again being harassed at her new xxxx because 
her new section leader was married to someone who had been stationed at her prior  xxxx.  Her 
new  section  leader  would  not  leave  her  alone.    The  applicant  reported  having  headaches,  con-
tinuing nightmares about PO X, crying bouts, and difficulty concentrating.  She told the doctor 
that she was avoiding men and Coast Guard people in particular and felt panicky, breathless, and 
nauseous  when  approached  by  Coast  Guard  males.    The  doctor  diagnosed  her  with  PTSD  and 

 

 

possible  Histrionic  Personality  Disorder  and  noted  that  the  applicant  was  “very  emotionally 
responsive” and could  
 

become severely depressed.  She may seek out situations in which she can be aroused, even if the 
emotion she experiences is unpleasant.  The depression she experiences may become so pervasive 
and overwhelming that she may attempt to harm herself.  She is attention-seeking, concerned with 
social acceptance, nurturance and  may  try to seek a response from others.  There is a longing to 
have close relationships, but relationships are conflictual, frustrating and fall short of her expecta-
tions.  
 
A “Narrative Summary in Support of Medical Board” dated August 3,  200X, states that 
the applicant’s diagnoses were PTSD and major depression.  The doctor reported the history of 
these conditions as follows: 
 

2.  History:    [The  applicant]  had  no  apparent  history  of  mental  health  problems  until  she  began 
facing apparent sexual harassment at the hands of one of her supervisors soon after arriving at her 
first  duty  station,  around  November  200X.    The  situation  progressed  to  the  point  that  she  now 
becomes  extremely  anxious  around  men  and  avoids  people  associated  with  the  Coast  Guard  as 
much  as  possible.    She  was  administratively  reassigned  to  a  different  unit  but  continues  to  feel 
isolated and depressed. 
 
She  was  seen  by  psychology  at  Naval  Hospital  Xxxxxxxx  and  given  a  diagnosis  of  [PTSD], 
resulting  from  sexual  harassment  (Attch  1).    No  allegations  of  rape  have  been  made.    A  second 
psychological evaluation concurred with PTSD (Attch 2a). 
 
An initial personality profile  (MMPI) was  found to be “invalid.”  This can result  when  a person 
tries to create a certain outcome on the test; this test in  her case is not available for review.   An 
alternate personality profile, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), was given.  Her results 
on PAI were not “invalid,” though it was noted that “the respondent many not have answered in a 
completely  forthright  manner”  and  that  she  “appears  somewhat  reluctant  to  recognize  faults  or 
problems in herself.”  Still, there was “no evidence to suggest that the respondent was motivated 
to portray herself in a more negative or pathological light than the clinical picture would warrant” 
(Attch 4).  No diagnosis of personality disorder was made. 
 
Finally, she was seen by psychiatry at NHGL and given the diagnoses of anxiety and depression; 
though perceived sexual harassment was noted, PTSD was not specifically included in listed diag-
noses (Attch 3).  Psychiatrist did recommend a trial of medications, fluoxetine and seroquel, which 
she is currently taking. 
 
To this point, she still suffers her major symptoms, with little change noted on follow-up psycho-
logical  evaluation  (Attch  2b).    She  continues  to  be  seen  for  therapeutic  counseling  weekly.    She 
denies alcohol or drug use, and denies any thoughts of suicide. 

5. Diagnoses:   

a) anxiety disorder NOS (ICD-9: 300.00)  
b) major depression, single episode (ICD-9: 296.2) 
[c) post-traumatic stress disorder (ICD-9: 309.81)] 

•  •  • 

6.  Recommendations:    [The  applicant]  is  currently  “not  fit  for  full  duty”  (NFFFD).    She  has  a 
recent diagnosis of anxiety disorder and depression, and these symptoms appear to be caused by 
sexual harassment suffered at the hand of a Coast Guard superior.  In addition, transfer away from 
the  unit  has  not  improved  her  condition,  and  she  continues  to  be  severely  affected  despite  on-
going counseling.  She was recently begun on medications to help with her mood and anxiety, but 
since the entire Coast Guard environment seems to be exacerbating the post-traumatic elements of 
her condition, separation from the service altogether may offer the best chances of full recovery.  

 

 

 

She would, of course, need to continue in therapeutic medications and counseling into the foresee-
able  future.    These  services  are  readily  available  from  civilian  sources.    She  does  not  suffer  any 
disability.   
 
I  would recommend  she be  separated from service  now,  to continue  in  treatment  in a civilian or 
VA setting. 
 
On  August  3,  200X,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  a  medical  board  had  found  that  she 

was not fit for duty based on diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Major Depression, and PTSD. 

 
Sanitized trial records in the applicant’s military records show that on August 30, 200X, 
someone, presumably PO X, was tried by summary court-martial.  He pled guilty to a charge of 
violating regulations by “wrongfully engaging in sexually intimate behavior” by having an inap-
propriate relationship with someone, presumably the applicant, in violation of Article 8.H.2.g. of 
the Personnel  Manual,  at  Xxxx Xxxxxxxx from  November to  December  200X.   He  was found 
not guilty of one charge of assault  (“striking her face with his open hand”) and two charges of 
indecent  assault  (“placing  her  hand  against  his  groin”  and  “grinding  his  hips  and  groin  against 
her  buttocks”),  but  was  found  guilty  of  a  lesser  included  offense  of  committing  “indecent  acts 
with another” by positioning himself behind her and bumping (rather than grinding) his hips and 
groin  against  her  buttocks.    His  punishment  was  reduction  in  rank  to  E-3  and  one  month’s 
restriction to base. 

 
On September 13, 200X, the psychiatrist reported that the applicant’s mood and anxiety 
symptoms  were  stable  but  that  she  was  upset  because  she  thought  the  punishment  PO  X  had 
received at court-martial was too lenient. 

 
In  October  200X,  the  applicant  began  treatment  for  temporomandibular  joint  disease 
(known as TMJ or TMD) with pain, which she said had begun when PO X hit her in December 
200X.  A dentist reported that she needed physical therapy and was a candidate for oral surgery.  
The applicant began physical therapy (PT) for TMJ and received a “splint” to wear in her mouth. 

 
In early  December 200X, the applicant was transferred back to Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx.  On 
December 20, 200X, she was evaluated by an orofacial pain consultant at the Naval Institute for 
Dental and Biomedical Research in Xxxxxxxx.  He prescribed a treatment plan including patient 
education and self-care, psychological counseling, and chronic pain management.  He also wrote 
that there was no orofacial pain specialist at the hospital and recommended that the applicant be 
returned to Xxxxxxx for treatment. 

 
On January 3, 200X, the applicant underwent examination for TMJ by a dentist and oral 
surgeon at  Xxxx Xxxx Oral  and Maxillofacial Surgery.   The doctor advised her command that 
her  medical  records  and  x-rays  were  consistent  with  mild  left  TMJ  synovitis,  intermittent  mild 
right  TMJ  synovitis,  myositis  and  myalgia  of  the  muscles  of  mastication,  guarding  trismus 
(lockjaw),  and  headaches.    In  addition,  he  noted  her  condition  could  stem  from  the  injury  she 
sustained in  December  200X or from  clenching  her jaw as “most of her  trismus is muscular in 
origin.”  He recommended that she take anti-inflammatory medications, in lieu of narcotics, and 
have PT at a facility in nearby xxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxx. 

 

 

 

On January 23, 200X, a doctor advised the applicant’s command that although a medical 
board report had been completed, it was not processed “in part due to perceived improvement of 
member’s condition.”  However, the doctor stated that the applicant was “seeing PT 3 – 4 times a 
week, not sleeping well, having nightmares,” and had not been fit for duty for some time.  The 
doctor said that the medical board process should be completed.  He also noted that because the 
applicant had been taking Vicodin for several months, she should not be standing watch. 

 
On  February  23,  200X,  the  Executive  Petty  Officer  of  the  xxxx  entered  the  following 

Page 7 in her record, which she signed: 
 

23FEB07:  On this date, you notified your Command that you have been involved in an unaccept-
able romantic relationship with [a BM3].  You state that your relationship is very serious and will 
lead  to  marriage  in  the  near  future.    As  per  Section  8-H,  Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST 
M1000.6  (series),  you  are  prohibited  from  having  a  romantic  relationship  when  assigned  to  a 
command  with  less  than  60  members.    In  addition,  the  Coast  Guard  is  not  obligated  to  reassign 
personnel due to members’ desires or based solely on a relationship.  When reassignment is not an 
option, members may be directed to end a relationship. 
 
You stated your intention to marry [the BM3]; the intent of marriage does not relieve you of your 
obligation and responsibility to abide by Section 8-H, Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 
(series). 
 
You  have  been  counseled  on  the  policies  pertaining  to  Interpersonal  Relationships  within  the 
Coast  Guard  [in  accordance  with]  Section  8-H,  Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1000.6 
(series). 
 
On February 26, 200X, the applicant was charged with failing to obey an order or regula-
tion in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for having an unacceptable 
relationship  in  violation  of  Article  8.H.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  command  convened  an 
investigation and the applicant was advised of her rights in writing.  The applicant submitted a 
written statement for the investigation in which she explained that she had met the BM3 upon her 
return to Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx in early December 200X.  At first, he had a girlfriend and she had a 
fiancé  (a  Coast  Guardsman  stationed  in  Xxxxxxx),  so  they  were  merely  friends.    However, 
“feelings began to take over,” and by early February 200X, they “knew that [they] were going to 
get married and be together forever.”  The applicant noted that when she signed the first Page 7 
in  her  record  about  inappropriate  relationships  while  at  Sector  Xxxxxxx,  she  was  told  that  her 
signature was only  an acknowledgement of receipt  and not  an indication  of agreement, but  the 
Officer  in  Charge  (OIC)  of  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxxxx  believed  that  a  signature  on  a  Page  7  indicated 
agreement.  She stated that the OIC’s belief was “making it more difficult for me to be with my 
future  husband,”  but  she  would  be  a  “supportive,  loving  coastie  wife”  if  the  medical  board 
process resulted in her being discharged.  

 
On April 4, 200X, the OIC entered the following Page 7 in the applicant’s record, which 

she signed: 

 
04APR07:    This  is  to  inform  you  that  you  have  failed  to  uphold  the  Coast  Guard’s  standards  of 
behavior  regarding  interpersonal  relationships  within  the  workplace.    As  a  result  of  your  three 
incidents of inappropriate romantic relationships as documented on CG 3307s, one undated from 
Sector Xxxxxxx, another dated 23 Feb 07 from  Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx,  you are being placed on six 
months  probation.    This  probationary  period  can  be  terminated  at  any  time  during  the  next  six 

 

 

months if you do not correct your behavior.  You must immediately cease your inappropriate rela-
tionship or you will be processed for discharge. 

On April 10, 200X, the OIC entered the following Page 7 in the applicant’s record, which 

 
 
she signed: 
 

10APR07:  On 04APR07 you were placed on performance probation for engaging in an inappro-
priate romantic relationship at STA Xxxxxxxxxx, a unit with less than 60 members.  A condition 
of this probation  was that  you immediately  terminate  your inappropriate relationship.   You  have 
stated your intention not to terminate your inappropriate relationship.  This failure to terminate the 
inappropriate relationship is a violation of the terms of your probation, and subsequently, the pro-
bation is rescinded.  In accordance  with [Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual],  you  will be 
processed for discharge. 
 
The OIC also notified the applicant by memorandum that he was initiating her discharge: 
 
1.  This is to inform you I have initiated action to discharge you from the U.S. Coast Guard pur-
suant  to  the  provisions  of  [Articles  12.B.12.  (discharges),  12.B.18.  (discharges  for  misconduct), 
and 8.H.6.f. (unacceptable relationships) of the Personnel Manual].  Your performance marks for 
this enlistment support an honorable discharge.  The reasons for my actions are based upon your 
failure to refrain from unacceptable romantic relationships. 
 
2.    The  decision  on  your  discharge  and  the  type  of  discharge  you  will  receive  rest  with  Com-
mander, ([Personnel Command, Enlisted Personnel Management]). 
 

(a) You may submit a statement on your behalf. 

 

(b)  You  may  disagree  with  my  recommendation;  if  so,  your  rebuttal  will  be  forwarded 

with my recommendation. 
 
Also  on  April  10,  200X,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receiving  the  notification  of  her 
pending discharge for misconduct.  She waived her right to submit a statement regarding the dis-
charge, waived her right to  request  a Second Chance  Discharge Waiver,  and indicated that  she 
did not object to being discharged. 
 

On April 10, 200X, the OIC submitted a recommendation that the applicant be honorably 

discharged for misconduct and wrote the following in pertinent part: 
 

2. While assigned to  CG  Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, MI  from November  200X thru  December  200X, [the 
applicant] engaged in two inappropriate romantic relationships, one with a supervisor, and another 
with a member of the same pay grade.  The second relationship was discovered by a CGIS agent 
during an investigation on her behalf.  Enclosure (1). 
 
3.  While assigned TAD to Sector  Xxxx, [the applicant]  was involved in a romantic relationship 
with a coworker, to the point of being engaged to be married.  [She] volunteered this information 
upon  her  check-in  at  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxxxx.    While  not  specifically  inappropriate,  it  does  help 
establish a pattern of workplace relationships that are questionable at best. 
 
4.  After reporting to Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx in December 200X, [the applicant] became engaged in an 
unacceptable  romantic  relationship  with  an  E-4,  her  direct  supervisor.    [She]  notified  this  com-
mand  of  her  relationship  with  another  member  of  the  crew  on  23FEB07  (Enclosure  2).    By  her 
own admission, [she] had been engaging in this inappropriate romantic relationship for over two 
months prior to notifying the command. 

 

 

 
5.    [The  applicant’s]  apparent  inability  to  refrain  from  unacceptable  romantic  relationships  leads 
me  to  believe  she  will  continue  this  pattern  throughout  her  career.    [She]  has  shown  a  lack  of 
responsibility  and  leadership  to  abstain  from  having  romantic  relationships  with  Coast  Guard 
members.    Her  actions  violate  the  Coast  Guard’s  Core  values  and  have  undermined  both  Xxxx 
Xxxxxxxxxx’s and the Coast Guard’s good order and military discipline. 
 
On April 11, 200X, the Sector Commander endorsed the OIC’s recommendation and for-

warded it to the Personnel Command with the following comments in pertinent part: 
 

2.  [The applicant] has had three documented unacceptable romantic relationships.  The first two 
incidents  (enclosure  1)  occurred  from  November  200X  through  December  200X  when  she  was 
involved  in  a  romantic  relationship  with  her  direct  supervisor,  an  E-4  at  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxx.    In 
addition,  it  was  discovered  during  a  CGIS  investigation  that  during  this  same  period  she  again 
violated  Article  8.H.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  by  maintaining  a  prohibited  romantic  relationship 
with  an  E-3  at  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxx.    She  was  formally  counseled  that  this  behavior  is  unacceptable 
and in violation of Commandant Policy in the same enclosure that delineated the violations. 
 
3.  [The applicant] notified her command on 23 February 200X that she was again involved in an 
unacceptable  romantic  relationship  with  a  petty  officer  at  her  unit,  Xxxx  Xxxxxxxxxx,  a  Small 
Shore Unit as defined in 8.H. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (enclosure 2).  She stated this 
relationship was very serious and will lead to marriage in the near future.  She was counseled that 
the  intent  to  marry  does  not  relieve  her  of  her  responsibility  to  adhere  to  regulations,  nor  is  the 
Coast Guard obligated to reassign her based solely on this relationship. 
 
4. [The applicant] was placed on probation 4 April 200X and was informed that the probationary 
period  could  be  terminated  at  any  time  if  she  did  not  end  her  inappropriate  relationship  imme-
diately.  She was informed 10 April 200X that her probationary period was terminated and that the 
command would initiate action to discharge her from the Coast Guard.  She completed Enclosure 
(1) to CGD9INST 1910.1 in which she waived her right to submit a statement, did not request a 
Second  Chance  Discharge  Waiver,  acknowledged  the  opportunity  to  consult  with  a  lawyer,  and 
did not object to discharge from the Coast Guard.  Indeed, she expressed a desire to be discharged. 

 

The record shows that the applicant married the BM3 after her discharge was initiated but 

before she was discharged.   

 
On April 20, 200X, the applicant’s dentist in Xxxxxxx reported that the applicant told her 
she had received “no active TMJ treatment other than palliative care” since transferring back to 
Xxxx  Xxxxxxxxxx  in  December  200X  and  that  her  TMJ  had  worsened  to  the  point  that  she 
needed surgery.  The dentist  asked the Coast  Guard to  return the applicant  to  Xxxxxxx so that 
she could undergo surgery. 

 
On May 16, 200X, the oral surgeon at Xxxx Xxxx Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery wrote to 
her command that although the applicant’s TMJ trismus continued, significant progress had been 
made  through  her  continuing  PT.    He  recommended  that  she  continue  aggressive  PT  and  take 
anti-inflammatory medications instead of narcotics. 

 
On May 17, 200X, the Personnel Command issued separation orders directing the appli-
cant’s command to discharge her on June 15, 200X for misconduct due to inappropriate relation-
ships in accordance with Article 12.B.18. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant underwent a 
pre-discharge physical examination and was found fit for separation pursuant to Chapter 3.C. of 

 

 

the Medical Manual.  The doctor also noted that she was not fit for duty with diagnoses of “TMJ 
syndrome requiring chronic controlled medication use [and] specialty care” and “PTSD – partial 
remission; depression remission” and that a medical board report had not been submitted due to 
the administrative separation proceedings.  On May 18, 200X, the applicant signed a form CG-
4057 on which she agreed that she either was “reasonably able to perform [her] current duties” or 
had “a high expectation  of recovery in the near term from illness, injury, or surgical procedure 
such that I would again be able to perform my usual duties.” 

 
The applicant was honorably discharged for misconduct on June 15,  200X, with 1 year, 
10 months, and 7 days of service.  She signed her DD 214 showing that she was discharged for 
misconduct. 

 
On October 20, 2009, the applicant applied for disability benefits from the Department of 
Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).  According to DVA records, she has claimed service connection and 
benefits for the following conditions:  PTSD, major depression, TMJ, anxiety, disc displacement, 
olfactory  nerve  disorder,  seizures  secondary  to  TMJ,  and  hemorrhages  secondary  to  TMJ.  
According  to  the  DVA’s  records,  she  told  the  DVA  examiner  that  she  “endur[ed]  7  months  of 
sexual  harassment,  physical  abuse,  derogatory  treatment  and  finally  rape  and  assault”  by  her 
supervisor in the Coast Guard.  In addition, she told the DVA examiner that her pain from TMJ 
required her to take Vicodin two or three times a day.  On February 8, 2011, the DVA awarded 
the applicant a 50% disability rating for PTSD with major depression and a 40% disability rating 
for  TMJ  syndrome  and  denied  service  connection  for  the  other  conditions.    Her  combined  dis-
ability rating is 70%, but on July 5, 2011, she was awarded a 100% rating for unemployability 
retroactive to October 20, 2009.  The DVA records also show that the applicant was originally 
denied disability benefits through the Social Security Administration but contested the denial and 
won. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 26, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 

 
 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   
 
 
The JAG stated that the applicant is not timely and should be denied because she knew 
when she was discharged in 200X that she was being discharged for misconduct and not receiv-
ing a medical retirement and because she has not submitted any evidence or a compelling ratio-
nale for reviewing her case on the merits.  The JAG stated that the application should be denied 
because the applicant has not submitted evidence or a rationale that warrants waiving the statute 
of limitations and providing a full review on the merits. 
 
 
Regarding the merits of the case, the JAG stated that the record shows that the applicant 
was counseled about her failure to comply with Article 8.H. of the Personnel Manual by engag-
ing in unacceptable relationships when she was assigned to Xxxx Xxxxxxxx in 200X.  She was 
also  counseled  that  further  violations  of  the  policy  might  lead  to  administrative  actions.  
However, the applicant had to be counseled again in February 200X about engaging in an unac-
ceptable  relationship  and  was  counseled  a  third  time  in  April  200X,  placed  on  probation,  and 
warned that continuing the violation of Article 8.H. would result in her being processed for dis-

 

 

charge.  After the applicant advised her command that she did not intend to end her unacceptable 
relationship, she was notified that she would be discharged for misconduct.  She did not object to 
the proposed discharge and did not request a second chance waiver.  
 
 
The JAG argued that the Coast Guard “clearly followed all applicable policy provisions 
regarding  the  applicant’s  involuntary  discharge  for  misconduct.”    The  applicant’s  continuing 
pattern of unacceptable relationships in the workplace was “a detriment to the Command’s abil-
ity to  maintain  good order and discipline.”   The  JAG alleged that the applicant  was  repeatedly 
counseled about  inappropriate relationships and the consequences thereof, placed on probation, 
and ordered to cease her then current unacceptable relationship in 200X, but chose to ignore the 
counseling and to continue violating the regulation. 
 
 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  claim  that  she  should  have  been  medically  retired,  the  JAG 
argued that under Article 12.B.1.e. of the Personnel Manual, an administrative discharge for mis-
conduct supersedes processing for a disability separation or retirement.  Therefore, if the appli-
cant was being processed for a medical separation at the time of her discharge, that medical sepa-
ration was properly suspended until  final  resolution of the pending misconduct  discharge.  The 
JAG argued that the applicant’s claim that the Coast Guard did not follow its established policy 
with regard to her discharge is without merit. 
 
 
The JAG also noted that the Board has long held that a DVA disability rating does not by 
itself establish that the Coast Guard committed an error by finding a member fit for separation.  
The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  to  rebut  the  documentation 
showing that she agreed that she was fit for separation.  The JAG also noted that the applicant’s 
allegation  that  the  misconduct  of  a  fellow  member  contributed  to  her  DVA-rated,  service-
connected  disability  is  not  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  discharging  her  for  miscon-
duct. 
 
 
The JAG concluded that given the untimeliness of the application, the lack of an excuse 
for  not  applying  sooner,  and  the  probable  lack  of  success  on  the  merits  of  the  application,  the 
Board should find that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 12, 2012, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  The appli-
cant’s response was submitted by her advocate, who said she is “a nationally recognized Subject 
Matter Expert on Sexual Trauma.”  She stated that the complexities of this case and the totality 
of the circumstances warrant relief. 
 
 
Regarding  the  untimeliness  of  the  application,  the  advocate  stated  that  the  applicant’s 
condition  has  declined  significantly  since  her  discharge  and  now  includes  seizures  and  anti-
seizure  medication  that  makes  it  difficult  for  her  to  “think  straight”  and  prevented  her  from 
reviewing her paperwork, forming her arguments, and submitting her application.  The advocate 
also alleged that the applicant could not find an advocate and alleged that she herself is the only 
advocate who assists service members in discharge appeals.  The advocate alleged that before the 
applicant  met  her,  the  applicant  was  unaware  that  her  discharge  was  not  in  accordance  with 

 

 

Coast  Guard  regulations.    Therefore,  she  argued,  the  untimeliness  of  the  application  should  be 
excused. 
 
 
The advocate alleged that during the investigation at Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, the applicant told 
the  investigators  that  PO  X  had  raped  her.    The  statements  she  made  “caused  unintended 
consequences when unit members were punished for inappropriate relationships and in turn pro-
vided information to investigators related to rumors surrounding the applicant’s love life.”  The 
applicant  was  unaware  of  what  others  had  told  the  investigators  “before  being  punished  for 
‘inappropriate relationships.’”1  She alleged that their statements to the investigators were based 
only on rumors and speculation, and the applicant signed the Page 7 to acknowledge receipt, not 
to signify that she agreed with the contents. 
 
 
The advocate pointed out that when the applicant fell in love with her husband at  Xxxx 
Xxxxxxxxxx, she demonstrated integrity by informing her chain of command.  However, instead 
of  arranging  a  transfer,  as  Coast  Guard  regulations  allow,  they  prohibited  the  relationship  and 
then discharged her after she married.  The advocate argued that the applicant’s relationship with 
her  husband  was  not  sordid  or  disparaging  to  the  Coast  Guard  and  did  not  “undermine  good 
order and discipline,” and the Coast Guard lost two motivated and functional members when it 
could have simply transferred one of them to another unit.  She argued that the applicant should 
not be punished when her only crime was falling in love and being honest about it.   

 
With regard to the Coast Guard’s regulations, the advocate claimed that having an inap-
propriate relationship is not an offense and so cannot be classified as “misconduct.”  Therefore, 
she argued, the applicant was improperly discharged for “misconduct” that did not exist and was 
given no right to defend herself at a proceeding.   
 

The  advocate  also  argued  that  the  military  is  ill-equipped  to  deal  with  rape  claims  and 
victims, that the public is appalled by its conduct in this regard, and that Congress is deliberating 
legislation  to  change  how  rape  claims  and  victims  are  handled.    She  stated  that  the  applicant’s 
case  has  become  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  that  has  shocked  and  appalled  the  public  because  the 
applicant was discharged but her rapist walked free. 

 
The advocate stated that at a minimum, the term “misconduct” should be removed from 
the applicant’s discharge and she should receive a medical evaluation to determine her fitness for 
duty.  She requested a hearing so that she would be able “to produce an abundance of witnesses 
and/or documentation to substantiate” her claims. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  12.B.18.b.6.f.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  the  spring  of  200X  provided 
that  members  could  be  discharged  for  misconduct  if  they  engaged  in  an  interpersonal  relation-
ship prohibited under Article 8.H. of the manual. 
 

                                                 
1  The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant’s  record  contains  no  evidence  of  any  disciplinary  action  taken  against  her  at 
Xxxx Xxxxxxxx. 

 

 

Under Article 8.H. of the manual, romantic relationships between two members assigned 
 
to the same small shore unit (defined as a unit with fewer than 60 personnel) or between super-
visors and subordinates are unacceptable and contrary to Service policy.  Article 8.H.5.b. states 
that  
 

[p]ersonnel  finding  themselves  involved  in  or  contemplating  unacceptable  relationships  should 
report the situation and seek early resolution from their supervisor, commanding officer, officer in 
charge,  command  enlisted  advisor,  or  Coast  Guard  chaplain.  Any  potential  conflict  with  Coast 
Guard policy should be addressed promptly. Commands are expected to assist members in under-
standing Coast Guard policy requirements and resolving conflicts. Bringing an unacceptable rela-
tionship to early Command attention will increase the opportunity for early, positive resolution. 

 
 
Article 8.H.6.c. of the Personnel Manual states that when a command learns of an unac-
ceptable relationship, the parties may be counseled on Page 7s, and “[c]ounseling may include a 
direct order to terminate a relationship.”  Article 8.H.6.d. states that “[m]embers may request or a 
command  may  recommend  reassignment  of  a  member  involved  in  a  questionable  relationship.  
However, reassignment is not a preferred option.  The Coast Guard is not obligated to reassign 
personnel due to members’ desires or based solely on a relationship.  When reassignment is not 
an option, members may be directed to end a relationship.”  Under Articles 8.H.6.f. and g., com-
mands may take administrative and disciplinary action against members involved in an unaccept-
able  relationship,  including  “[a]s  warranted,  commands  may  recommend  separation.”    Exhibit 
8.H.1.  states  that  a  “prohibited  relationship”  is  one  that  violates  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice. 
 
 
Article 12.B.18.c. of the manual states that a command “must afford a member a reasona-
ble  probationary  period  to  overcome  deficiencies  before  initiating  administrative  discharge”  in 
cases  where  the  member  is  involved  in  a  romantic  relationship  prohibited  under  Article  8.H.  
However, “commanding officers are authorized to recommend discharge at any time during the 
probation if the member is not making an effort to overcome the deficiency.” 
 
Article 12.B.18.e. states that a member being administratively discharged for misconduct 
 
has a right to receive written notification of the reason for the proposed discharge and to submit a 
statement regarding the discharge to be forwarded with the  
 
 
ability Evaluation and Disciplinary Action,” states the following: 
 

Article  12.B.1.e.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  entitled  “Cases  Involving  Concurrent  Dis-

Disability  statutes do not preclude disciplinary separation.  The separations  described  here super-
sede disability separation or retirement.  If Commander, (CGPC-adm) is processing a member for 
disability while simultaneously Commander, (CGPC-epm-1) is evaluating him or her for an invol-
untary administrative separation for misconduct or disciplinary proceedings which could result in 
a punitive discharge or an unsuspended punitive discharge is pending, Commander, (CGPC-adm) 
suspends  the  disability  evaluation  and  Commander,  (CGPC-epm-1)  considers  the  disciplinary 
action.  If the action taken does not include punitive or administrative discharge  for  misconduct, 
Commander, (CGPC-adm) sends or returns the case to Commander, (CGPC-adm) for processing.  
If  the  action  includes  either  a  punitive  or  administrative  discharge  for  misconduct,  the  medical 
board report shall be filed in the terminated member’s medical personnel data record (MED PDR). 

 

 

 

Article 2.C.11. of the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual in effect in 

 
200X states the following: 

 
a.    Disability  statutes  do  not  preclude  disciplinary  or  administrative  separation  under  applicable 
portions of the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M100.6 (series).  If a member is being processed 
for a disability retirement or separation, and proceedings to administratively separate the member 
for  misconduct, disciplinary proceedings  which could result in a punitive discharge of the  mem-
ber, or an unsuspended punitive discharge of the member is pending, final action on the disability 
evaluation proceedings will be suspended, and the non-disability action monitored by [CGPC]. ... 
 
b.  If the court martial or administrative process does not result in the execution of a punitive or an 
administrative discharge, the disability evaluation process will resume.  If a punitive or adminis-
trative discharge is executed, the disability evaluation case will be closed and the proceedings filed 
in the member’s official medical record. 

 

Article 2.C.2. of the PDES Manual states the following: 
 
Fit For Duty/Unfit for Continued Duty. The following policies relate to fitness for duty:  
 
a.  The  sole  standard  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 through military service. … 
 
b. The law that provides for disability 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. … 

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.   

 

2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.2   
 

3. 

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 her record.  The applicant has 
alleged that her misconduct discharge and lack of a medical retirement are erroneous and unjust 
and asked the Board to correct them.  She alleged that she did not discover the error and injustice 
until March 2011.  However, she was discharged for misconduct on June 15, 200X, and knew at 
that  time  that  she  had  been  diagnosed  with  PTSD  and  TMJ  but  was  not  receiving  a  medical 

                                                 
2 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 

 

 

retirement.  She signed her DD 214 showing her honorable discharge for misconduct.  Therefore, 
the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant knew of her mis-
conduct  discharge,  her  diagnoses,  and  lack  of  medical  retirement  on  June  15,  200X,  and  her 
application is untimely.   

 
4. 

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.”3  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.”4  

 
5. 

Regarding the delay of her application, the applicant stated that she has been suf-
fering from PTSD and a seizure disorder and could not find an advocate to help her contest her 
discharge.    However,  there  are  many  agencies,  representatives,  and  attorneys  available  to  help 
veterans contest their discharges, and the record shows that the applicant was able to file for and 
contest  her  benefits  from  both  the  Social  Security  Administration  and  the  DVA  within  three 
years  of  her  discharge.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  the  applicant’s  explanation  for  her  delay  in 
contesting her discharge is neither persuasive nor compelling. 

 
6. 

Pursuant  to  the  requirement  for  a  cursory  review  of  the  potential  merits  of  the 
case,  the  Board  will  briefly  address  the  applicant’s  four  claims,  as  listed  on  page  1  above,  in 
order.    Regarding  the  merits  of  the  applicant’s  claim  that  her  misconduct  discharge  was  not 
processed  in  accordance  with  Coast  Guard  regulations,  the  Board  finds  no  evidence  that  the 
Coast  Guard  failed to  follow its regulations in  discharging the applicant for misconduct.    Con-
trary to the applicant’s allegations, her romantic relationship with the BM3 constituted miscon-
duct under Article 8.H. of the Personnel Manual both because he was one of her supervisors and 
because they were assigned to a small unit with fewer than 60 personnel.  The record shows that 
in accordance with Articles 8.H. and 12.B.18.c. of the Personnel Manual, on April 4, 200X, her 
command  properly  ordered  her  to  end  the  relationship  and  placed  her  on  probation,  but  on  or 
before April 10, 200X, the applicant informed her command that she refused to obey the order 
and abide by the terms of her probation.  Because the applicant refused to obey the order to end 
her  unacceptable  romantic  relationship  despite  repeated  counseling,  her  command  properly 
initiated  her  administrative  discharge  for  misconduct  in  accordance  with  Articles  8.H.6.f.  and 
12.B.18.c.    The  record  further  shows  that  the  applicant  received  due  process  under  Article 
12.B.18.e., and that she opted not to object to the proposed discharge for misconduct.   

 
7. 

Regarding  the  merits  of  the  applicant’s  claim  that  she  was  entitled  to  a  medical 
retirement because she was undergoing PDES processing at the time of her discharge, the Board 
finds  that  although  she  had  been  diagnosed  with  PTSD  and  TMJ  in  200X,  in  accordance  with 
Article  12.B.1.e.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  Article  12.C.11.  of  the  PDES  Manual,  any 

                                                 
3 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
4 Id. at 164-65; see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   
 

 

 

PDES  processing  she  may  have  been  undergoing  was  properly  suspended  and  ended  upon  her 
discharge  in  200X.  These  regulations  clearly  state  that  an  administrative discharge  for  miscon-
duct supersedes PDES processing. 

 
8. 

Regarding  the  merits  of  the  applicant’s  claim  that  she  is  entitled  to  a  medical 
retirement because she continues to suffer from disabilities she incurred in the Coast Guard, the 
Board notes that the DVA exists mainly to provide medical care and disability benefits to veter-
ans  who  are  disabled  by  service-connected  medical  conditions  whether  or  not  those  conditions 
caused  the  veterans’  discharge,  whereas  the  military  awards  medical  separations  only  to  those 
whose military service is terminated because of disabilities incurred or aggravated in the line of 
duty.5  The record clearly shows that the applicant’s military service  terminated because of her 
misconduct, not because of her medical conditions.  In addition, the Board notes that DVA rat-
ings are “not determinative of the same issues involved in military disability cases.”6   

 
9. 

Regarding the merits of the applicant’s claim of injustice based on her allegation 
that a sexual and physical assault by another member, PO X, in 200X resulted in her PTSD and 
TMJ,  the  Board  finds  that  the  nature  of  the  applicant’s  interactions  with  PO  X  at  Xxxx 
Xxxxxxxx  are  unclear  in  the  record,  which  shows  that  the  applicant  advised  various  therapists 
and doctors beginning in March 200X that PO X had sexually harassed her and once slapped her 
face but also that an investigation convinced the Sector Commander that they had been engaged 
in a romantic relationship.  Even assuming the applicant’s past allegations of sexual harassment 
and assault and new allegations of rape are true, however, such circumstances would not justify 
the applicant’s misconduct and refusal to obey orders in  200X or render her separation for that 
misconduct unjust. 

 
10. 

Based on the record before it, the Board finds that  the applicant’s claims cannot 
prevail on the merits.  Therefore and in light of the lack of a persuasive explanation for her delay 
in  filing  her  application,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the 
untimeliness of the application in this case. 

 
11. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  also  complained  of  a  seizure  disorder.    The 
date  of  this  diagnosis  is  not  known  to  the  Board  and  so  the  timeliness  of the  applicant’s  claim 
regarding the seizure disorder is unclear.  However, the DVA found the seizure disorder not to be 
service  connected,  and  there  is  no  evidence  whatsoever  that  the  applicant  experienced  seizures 
while  on  active  duty.    Therefore,  assuming  arguendo  that  her  claim  regarding  her  seizure  dis-
order is timely, the Board finds that it lacks merit because there is no evidence that any seizure 
disorder existed prior to her discharge, and because any PDES processing for a seizure disorder 
would properly have been superseded by her administrative discharge for misconduct. 

 
12. 

 
applicant’s request should be denied because it is untimely and lacks merit. 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the untimeliness of the application.  The 

                                                 
5 PDES Manual, Article 2.C.2.b.  

6 Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983);  see Dzialo v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 554, 565 (1984) (holding 
that a VA disability rating “is in no way determinative on the issue of plaintiff’s eligibility for disability retirement 
pay. A long line of decisions have so held in similar circumstances, because the ratings of the VA and armed forces 
are made for different purposes.”). 

 

 

The application of  former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for  correction of 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Peter G. Hartman 

 

 

 
 Dana Ledger 

 

 

 
 Adam V. Loiacono 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

her military record is denied.