DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-061 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 case  after receiving  the  applicant’s 
completed application on January 17, 2012, 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  August  16,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman, asked the Board to upgrade his reentry code on his dis-
charge form DD 214, issued on May 17, 2002, from RE-3E, which indicates that he is eligible 
for reenlistment with a waiver, to RE-1, which makes him eligible for reenlistment. 
 
 
The applicant said that he enlisted in the Coast Guard on March 12, 2002, after serving 
four years on active duty in the Air Force.  During his pre-enlistment physical examination, there 
was  a  small  spot  on  his  right  knee,  which  he  thought  was  psoriasis,  but  he  was  found  fit  for 
enlistment.  However, when he reported for basic training, he was told that the spot of psoriasis 
disqualified  him  from  serving  on  active  duty.    Even  though  he  completed  ten  weeks  of  basic 
training  and  was  selected  for  the  recruit  honor  guard,  he  was  removed  from  training  and  dis-
charged with an RE-3E reentry code.  Upon returning home, he attempted to reenlist in the Air 
National Guard and was told that he could not because of the RE-3E reentry code.  The applicant 
alleged that he has been trying to get back into the service for almost ten years and only recently 
learned about the Board. 
 
 
In addition, the applicant alleged that a physician recently tested the skin on his knee and 
found that it is not psoriasis and that “the condition was very stable and would in no way inter-
fere with any physical activities that I would undertake.” 
 

 

 

The  applicant  noted  that  over  the  past  ten  years,  he  has  served  five  years  as  a  police 
 
officer and five years as a letter carrier for the Postal Service.  However, even after five years as 
a letter carrier, he is technically a “transitional employee” and may be laid off if the Post Office 
limits service to five days a week and reduces its workforce. 
 
 
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a letter from a physician and dermatolo-
gist,  who  wrote  the  following  about  the  applicant  on  October  1,  2010,  “to  whom  it  may  con-
cern”: 
 

I am evaluating this patient today for a history of psoriasis.  He has apparently had this plaque-like 
rash on the right leg his entire life.  … He is now seeking to return to the National Guard and was 
told that psoriasis was on the list of conditions that would disqualify him. 
 
In  review  of  the  patient’s  chart,  it  is  known  that  this  is  a  very  minimal  case  in  that  the  original 
biopsy suggests that this may just be psoriasiform dermatitis or a lichen simplex chronicus.  It is 
my  opinion  that  this  is  a  very  stable  condition,  and  in  regards  to  the  patient’s  previous  military 
history, I see no reason why this should preclude him from entering the National Guard. 

 
 
The applicant also submitted a letter dated March 18, 2004, from another physician and 
dermatologist,  who  wrote  that  the  applicant  had  “successfully  completed  a  course  of  treatment 
for his skin and the slight area of hyperpigmentation on his right anterior thigh, in my opinion, 
should in no way impede his ability to perform his duties in the military.” 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  three  letters  of  recommendation,  dated  August  14,  2003, 
 
from Air Force personnel who highly recommended allowing him to re-enter the Air Force based 
upon his past performance. 
 
 
The applicant also submitted a copy of his Air Force DD 214, which shows that he served 
in the Air Force for exactly four years, from July 2, 1997, through July 1, 2001; trained to be a 
fuels journeyman and advanced to paygrade E-4; and was honorably discharged upon the com-
pletion of his obligated service with a 1J reentry code, which means that he was eligible to reen-
list but elected to separate. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On February 19, 2002, the applicant  underwent  a pre-enlistment  physical.   When asked 
whether he had ever suffered from “skin diseases (e.g. acne, eczema, psoriasis, etc.),” he advised 
the doctor that he had suffered from “mild acne.”  When completing a medical history report, he 
checked “no” when specifically asked whether he had ever had psoriasis. 
 

On March 12, 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard and began recruit training.  
During  his  first  physical  examination  on  March  13,  2002,  the  doctor  noted  that  the  applicant 
reported that he had been diagnosed with psoriasis at age 5.  The doctor measured three silvery, 
scaly plaques on the applicant’s right leg at 9 x 5 centimeters, 1 x 1.5 centimeters, and 1 x 2 cen-
timeters and noted that the applicant had undergone laser treatments for pain.  The doctor found 
that the applicant was fit for duty except for being “tracked for psoriasis.” 
 

 

 

On March 16, 2002, a doctor noted that the applicant had sought relief for scaly psoriasis 

plaques on his right knee that began to itch while he was swimming.  He prescribed a salve. 
 

A  memorandum  dated  April  21,  2002,  shows  that  a  medical  board  evaluated  the  appli-
cant’s condition and found that he was disqualified from active duty due to psoriasis pursuant to 
Chapter  3.D.33.q.  of  the  Medical  Manual.1    The  applicant  signed  an  acknowledgement  of  this 
notification and initialed a statement indicating that he did not desire to request a waiver2 for the 
disqualifying condition and would be processed for discharge. 

 
On April 22, 2002, a physician’s assistant noted that the applicant’s psoriasis was a dis-
qualifying  condition  discovered  during  his  MEPS  examination  and  that  the  applicant  was 
retained in basic training for six weeks and then reevaluated.  “He experienced only mild irrita-
tion of the plaques without growth or spread.  He did complain of finger joint pain for the past 5 
months  (unknown  if  related  to  Psoriasis  at  this  time).    Waiver  was  offered  to  [the  applicant] 
which he deferred in order to pursue a more suitable career.” 
 

On  April  24,  2002,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  of  the 
training center had initiated his discharge due to “erroneous entry” because “a medical physician 
diagnosed  you  with  Psoriasis.    This  condition  existed  prior  to  your  enlistment  in  the  Coast 
Guard.  You were offered a medical waiver and chose to decline this waiver.  As a result of this 
diagnosis,  you  are  not  physically  qualified  for  enlistment.”    The  applicant  acknowledged  this 
notification,  waived  his  right  to  submit  a  statement,  and  indicated  that  he  did  not  object  to  the 
proposed discharge. 
 

On May 1, 2002, the CO sent the Personnel Command a recommendation that the appli-
cant be discharged “for erroneous enlistment as a result of a pre-existing medical condition: pso-
riasis.”  The CO noted that during the applicant’s “accession physical, it was noted that [he] had 
three  silvery  scaly  plaques  on  his  right  lower  extremity.    [He]  was  kept  fit  for  fully  duty  and 
trained  until  his  sixth  week  of  bootcamp  at  which  time  he  was  re-evaluated.    He  experienced 
only  mild  irritation  of  the  plaques  without  growth  or  spread.    He  was  offered  but  declined  a 
waiver request and desires discharge from the service.” 
 
 
On  May  13,  2002,  the  Personnel  Command  issued  orders  for  the  applicant  to  be  dis-
charged due to erroneous entry under Article 12.B.12. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant’s 
DD  214,  which  he  signed,  shows  that  on  May  17,  2002,  he  was  honorably  discharged  due  to 
“erroneous entry” with the RE-3E reentry code and a JFC separation code, which means that he 
was involuntarily discharged because he had “erroneously  enlisted, reenlisted, extended or was 
inducted into a Service component (not related to alcohol or drug abuse).” 
 
 
authority to review his request and that he could apply to the BCMR, instead. 
 

On February 25, 2003, the Discharge Review Board advised the applicant that it lacked 

                                                 
1 Past or current psoriasis is a disqualifying condition for enlistment.  Medical Manual, Chap. 3.D.33. 
2 Chapter 3.F.2. of the Medical Manual states in part that  “[i]f the  member’s condition is disqualifying but he/she 
can perform his/her duty, a waiver request could be submitted in lieu of immediate referral to a Medical Evaluation 
Board. If the request is denied, then a Medical Evaluation Board is required.” 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On March 14, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted 
the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel Ser-
vice Center (PSC).   

 
PSC  noted  that  the  application  is  not  timely  and  argued  that  it  should  be  denied  due  to 
untimeliness.    Regarding  the  merits  of  the  case,  PSC  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  claim  lacks 
merit because the record shows that he was properly discharged because of a disqualifying medi-
cal condition that pre-existed his enlistment.  Therefore, his RE-3E reentry code applies because 
it  makes  him  “eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  a  disqualifying  factor.”    PSC  noted  that  to 
reenlist, the applicant need only persuade a service recruiter to “initiate the accession process and 
provide  a  waiver  for  his  condition.”    PSC  alleged  that  the  applicant  “has  failed  to  substantiate 
any error or injustice with regards to [his] record.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 26, 2012, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He alleged 
 
that his medical records show that the diagnosis of psoriasis is erroneous.  In addition, he alleged 
that PSC’s claim that he is eligible for enlistment with the RE-3E code is incorrect because two 
different recruiters for the Air National guard have told him that the RE-3E makes him ineligible 
to  reenlist.   The applicant  stated that under Air National  Guard  Instruction 36-2002, Table 1.9, 
the only acceptable entry codes from the U.S. Coast Guard are as follows:  R1, 1, 3J, 3X.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 

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

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant  to  10 U.S.C.  § 1552. 
The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  exhausted  his  administrative  remedies,  as  required  by  
33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b), because there is no other currently available forum or procedure provided 
by the Coast Guard for correcting the alleged error or injustice.3 

 
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 
received his DD 214 with an RE-3E reentry code in 2002.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 
 

3. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of an applica-
tion 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 

                                                 
3  The  Board  notes  in  this  regard  that  the  Discharge  Review  Board  does  not  normally  handle  medical  cases  and 
rejected the applicant’s application due to a lack of jurisdiction in 2003. 

 

 

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 argued that it is in the inter-
est of justice for the Board to excuse the delay because his reentry code is preventing his reen-
listment in the Air National Guard.  However, the record shows that the applicant was advised in 
2003 that he should apply to  the BCMR, and there is  no evidence that  anything prevented him 
from doing so. 

 
5. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant was prop-
erly discharged for erroneous entry because (a) under the Medical Manual, a diagnosis of psoria-
sis is  disqualifying for  enlistment; (b) the applicant  failed to  disclose his diagnosis of psoriasis 
during  his  pre-enlistment  physical  examination  in  February  2002;  (c)  when  the  diagnosis  was 
discovered  during  recruit  training,  the  applicant  refused  to  seek  a  waiver  and  opted  to  be  dis-
charged because of the psoriasis; and (d) he received due process  under Article 12.B.12. of the 
Personnel  Manual  in  that  he  was  notified  of  the  proposal  to  discharge  him  for  erroneous  entry 
and of his right to object and to submit a statement and he waived those rights.  Under COMDT-
INST M1900.4D, the only reentry codes authorized when members are discharged for erroneous 
entry are an RE-4 (ineligible for reenlistment) or an RE-3E, which means that the member was 
discharged  because  of  a  disqualifying  factor  and  is  eligible  to  reenlist  if  a  military  recruiting 
command  is  satisfied  that  the  problem  that  caused  his  discharge  no  longer  exists  and  so  grants 
him a waiver.   

 
6. 

Although the applicant  alleged that he has proved that the diagnosis of psoriasis 
was  erroneous,  the  letter  from  his  dermatologist  does  not  state  that  the  diagnosis  is  erroneous.  
Instead, the dermatologist wrote that “this is a very minimal case in that the original biopsy sug-
gests  that  this  may  just  be  psoriasiform  dermatitis  or  a  lichen  simplex  chronicus.”    (Emphasis 
added.)  Therefore, the applicant has not submitted evidence that overcomes the presumption that 
the diagnosis in his military record is correct.  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, lawfully, and in good faith.”).   

 
7. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  has  apparently  tried  to  reenlist  in  the  Air 
National Guard to no avail because under Air National Guard Instruction 36-2002, Table 1.9, the 
only acceptable reentry codes from the Coast Guard are R1, 1, 3J, 3X.  However, AGNI 36-2002 
is  erroneous  and  extremely  out  of  date  because  the  R1  and  3J  codes  have  not  been  authorized 
since September 1993.4  The only reentry codes authorized for Coast Guard personnel since Sep-
tember 1993 are those listed in Chapter 2 of COMDTINST M1900.4D.5  Under COMDTINST 
M1900.4D, the Coast Guard’s reentry codes are the same as the Navy’s, and Table 1.9 in ANGI 
36-2002 shows that a Navy veteran with an RE-3E is eligible to enlist in the Air National Guard.  

                                                 
4 COMDTINST M1900.4D, issued in September 1993, revised the Coast Guard’s authorized reentry codes and, in 
particular, discontinued the RE-R1 and RE-3J codes authorized under COMDTINST M1900.4C. 
5  For  the  list  of  authorized  reentry  codes  for  Coast  Guard  personnel,  see  Chapter  2  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D, 
which is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/directives/listing_cim.asp?files=20&id=1000-1999. 

 

 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  AGNI  36-2002’s  out-of-date  table  nor  the  Air  National  Guard’s 
refusal to reenlist the applicant prove that the RE-3E on his Coast Guard DD 214 is erroneous or 
unjust. 

 
8. 

Based  on  the  record  before  it,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  claim  cannot 
prevail on the merits.  Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or 
waive the statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction 

of his military record is denied.   
 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Marion T. Cordova 

 

 

 
 Anthony C. DeFelice 

 

 

 

 
 Rebecca D. Orban