DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2012-108 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  March  28,  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).  

 
This final decision, dated December 21, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  on  March  13,  1995,  after  completing  6 
months  and  28  days  of  active  service,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  the  reentry  code,  separation 
code, and narrative reason for separation on his discharge form, DD 214.  His DD 214 shows that 
he was discharged for “Unsuitability” under Article 12-B-16 of the Personnel Manual, with sepa-
ration  code  JFX  (which  denotes  separation  due  to  a  diagnosed  personality  disorder1)  and  reen-

                                                 
1  The  Coast  Guard  relies  on  the  American  Psychiatric  Association’S  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF 
MENTAL DISORDERS when diagnosing members with psychological conditions.  See Coast Guard Medical Manual, 
Chap.  5.B.1.    Under  the  DSM-IV-R,  a  “personality  disorder”  is  “an  enduring  pattern  of  inner  experience  and 
behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an 
onset  in  adolescence  or  early  adulthood,  is  stable  over  time,  and  leads  to  distress  or  impairment.”  American 
Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND  STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT 
REVISION  (2000)  (DSM-IV-R),  p.  685.    Types  of  personality  disorders  include  paranoid,  schizoid,  schizotypal, 
antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive. Id.  “The diagnosis of 
Personality  Disorders  requires  an  evaluation  of  the  individual’s  long-term  patterns  of  functioning  ….    The 
personality traits that define these disorders must also be distinguished from characteristics that emerge in response 
to  specific  situational  stressors  or  more  transient  mental  states  ….    The  clinician  should  assess  the  stability  of 
personality  traits  over  time  and  across  different  situations.”  Id.  at  686.    Dependent  personality  disorder  is  a 
“pervasive  and  excessive  need  to  be  taken  care  of  that  leads  to  submissive  and  clinging  behavior  and  fears  of 
separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five  (or more) of the 
following: 

 

 

listment code RE-4 (ineligible to reenlist).  The applicant asked that his narrative reason for sepa-
ration  be  corrected  to  “Breach  of  Contract,”  that  his  separation  code  be  corrected  to  JDP,2  and 
that his reentry code be corrected to one that would show that he is eligible to reenlist.   

 
The applicant alleged that when he enlisted, his Coast Guard recruiter led him to believe 
that he would be able to attend Marine Science Technician (MST) “A” School after serving at his 
first duty station for six months.  For that reason alone, he alleged, he left college where he was 
studying for  a degree in  marine science  and enlisted for what  he thought  would be just a four-
year  commitment.    However,  he  later  learned  that  he  had  unknowingly  been  enlisted  for  eight 
years.  Moreover, upon completing six months at his first duty station, a cutter based in Rhode 
Island,  he  was  told  that  “there  was  a  four  year  long  waiting  list  for  MST  school.    None  of  the 
other  available  rates  satisfied  [his]  career  goals  or  [his]  reasons  for  enlistment.”    Therefore,  he 
voluntarily submitted a request to be discharged due to breach of contract.  While waiting for his 
discharge, which was stalled, he once voluntarily visited a civilian counselor in the Coast Guard 
work/life program.  The counselor offered to get him a recommendation that would speed up his 
discharge.  The counselor referred him to a Navy doctor who had authority to make such a rec-
ommendation.  Thereafter, he was quickly discharged, and for 17 years that he thought he “had 
earned a normal Honorable discharge, took pride in [his] service, and believed [he] was eligible 
for reenlistment.”  However, on March 11, 2012, he learned that he was not eligible for reenlist-
ment  when  he  tried  to  join  the  Coast  Guard  Auxiliary.    He  believes  that  “the  counselor’s  and 
doctor’s  well-meaning  assistance  resulted  in  the  negative  and  unfounded  reentry  code  of  RE-4 
and a separation code of JFX.”  These codes had never been explained to him before he tried to 
join the Coast Guard Auxiliary.  The applicant  stated that if he had been told what  codes were 
going to be entered on his DD 214, he would not have chosen to be discharged. 

 
The applicant stated that contrary to the JFX code implies, he has never been diagnosed 
with  or  suffered  from  any  mental  health  issues.    The  “negative  codes  were  assigned,  without 
[his]  knowledge  as  an  administrative  quick  fix  to  expedite  [his]  stalled  discharge  process”  and 
were not a “true reflection of [his] work performance, character, or mental health.  

 
The applicant  stated that he needs the  Board to  make the  requested corrections  because 
the negative codes are negatively affecting his future employment opportunities even though  he 

                                                                                                                                                             

(1) Has  difficulty  making  everyday  decisions  without  an  excessive  amount  of  advice  and 
reassurance from others 
(2) Needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life 
(3) Has  difficulty  expressing  disagreement  with  others  because  of  fear  of  loss  of  support  or 
approval … 
(4) Has difficulty initiating projects or doing things on his or her own … 
(5) Goes  to  excessive  lengths  to  obtain  nurturance  and  support  from  others,  to  the  point  of 
volunteering to do things that are unpleasant 
(6) Feels  uncomfortable  or  helpless  when  alone  because  of  exaggerated  fears  of  being  unable  to 
care for himself or herself 
(7) Urgently seeks another relationship as a source of care and support when a close relationship 
ends 
(8) Is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself 

2 The Coast Guard’s Separation Program Designator Handbook does not list or authorize a JDP separation code or 
provide its meaning. 

 

 

has worked in the field of information technology for the last fifteen years and is studying for a 
master’s degree in national security with a concentration in information security. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On August 16, 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Before enlisting, during 
his pre-enlistment physical, he denied ever having suffered from depression, excessive worry, or 
nervous trouble on a Report of Medical History.  The contract he signed shows that he enlisted 
for four years of active duty and that if he did not then reenlist, he would be placed in the Ready 
Reserve for another four years.  The contract does not reference or include an Annex L guaran-
teeing admission to any particular rating or school.3 

 
On December 27, 1994, the applicant had an appointment with a Navy psychiatrist.  On 
December 28, 1994, the psychiatrist prepared a three-page handwritten report.  The doctor noted 
that the applicant had been referred for evaluation by a licensed social worker after the applicant 
telephoned his command earlier that same day that he told them that he 
 

considered killing himself in a MVA [motor vehicle accident] Friday 23 December 94 because of 
feeling ‘trapped’ in the USCD.  He is not motivated for continued military service, he wants out.  
He admits that he doesn’t find his job disagreeable, but he feels he’s ‘not getting anything out of 
it.’  He says he joined the CG because 1) he had no other choices, and 2) he hoped the decision 
would please his estranged father [and] allow them to build a closer relationship. 
 
When he phoned his  father on the day before leaving for basic training, his father said he didn’t 
want to be keeping in touch.  The [patient] realized he’d made a big mistake. His EAOS = 1998.  
Additionally, the [patient] said that a girl he’s known [about] 2 months who lives in Orange, Ma., 
broke up [with] him [on] 26 Dec. 94.  He’s feeling depressed, lonely, and uncared about. 
 
On Friday, 23 Dec. 94, as he was driving across a bridge in Ct. in a windstorm, he allowed the car 
to go across 2 lanes of ongoing traffic.  He regained control before getting too close to [the] railing 
[and] he drove on.  He’s had recurrent suicidal thoughts since. 
 
He admits to having had mood swings throughout his youth [with a] predominance of depression, 
feeling  lost,  apathetic,  angry,  [and]  frustrated.    He  deals  [with]  these  emotions  by  punching  the 
ceiling or hitting himself or pulling his hair.  Alcohol history includes 1st drink, 1st drunk [at] 14 
[years  old].   He’d  drink  on  [weekends  with]  friends.    He had  one  blackout.    No  DUIs.   He  now 
drinks 1 6-[pack] 2-3 nights a [week].  He’s had no withdrawal symptoms.  Drug use was prior to 
enlistment only, he smoked MJ regularly from 8 [sic] [years old] until college. 
 
The patient is the only child of an unwed mother.  His father has had  very limited contact.  They 
1st met when [patient] was 14 [years old].  They’ve talked ‘a total of one hour and 5 minutes’ his 
entire life.  His father has not been willing to establish any relationship. 
 
[Patient] was raised by mother [and maternal] grandparents.  Mother is ‘like my best friend.’  ‘It’s 
not  like  she’s  my  mother.’    [Patient]  denied  physical,  sexual,  verbal  abuse.    He  had  ‘lots  of 
friends’ growing up.  He graduated [high school at 18 years old].  He attended college [at 19 years 
old]. 
 

                                                 
3  In  1994,  guarantees  of  admission  to  a  particular  “A”  school  for  training  to  earn  a  particular  Coast  Guard  rating, 
such as MST, were documented on an Annex L that was incorporated into the enlistment contract by reference. 

 

 

 
 

Axis I:  None. [Need to rule out] alcohol abuse. 
Axis II:  Dependent personality disorder 
Axis III:  None 

A relaxed young man wearing civilian clothing.  He made adequate eye contact.  He spoke logi-
cally  in  a  normal  rate  [and]  volume.    There  was  no  psychomotor  agitation  or  depression.    He 
exhibited no signs or symptoms of a thought process or thought content disorder.  His mood was 
euthymic to anxious.  Affect was congruent. A [and] O x 3.  He denied suicidal or homicidal plans 
[or] intent.  Cognition was intact.  Insight is limited.  Impulse, judgment are influenced by his per-
sonality style. 
 
Diagnosis: 
 
 
 
Recommendations: 
1) Return to full duty, fit for same. 
2) [Patient] is responsible for his behavior. 
3) He  does  not  have  a  mental  illness  but  he  manifests  a  longstanding  disorder  of  conduct  [and] 
character that is of such severity as to interfere [with] serving adequately in the USCG.  He is not 
suicidal or homicidal but  he represents a continuing risk of harm to  himself or others.  I recom-
mend  consideration  of  ADMINISTRATIVE  SEPARATION  processing  for  unsuitability  on  the 
basis of a personality disorder. 
4) The servicemember may make [follow-up appointment] for supportive therapy at this clinic by 
calling [phone number redacted]. 
5) Plan/diagnosis/recommendations  were  discussed  with  [patient]  and  [the  Executive  Officer  of 
the applicant’s assigned cutter]. 
 
On January 19, 1995, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) notified him that he was 
initiating the applicant’s discharge for “Unsuitability by reason of personality disorders as diag-
nosed  by  [the  psychiatrist’s  name].”    The  CO  noted  that  the  applicant  could  disagree  with  the 
proposed discharge and submit a statement on his own behalf.  The applicant acknowledged the 
notification, noted that he did not object to being discharged, and submitted the following state-
ment: 
 

I, [name], do humbly request to be separated immediately from the United States Coast Guard due 
to  my  failing  mental  health.    A  condition  induced  by  an  overwhelming  combination  of  past 
trauma,  the  demands  of  military  life,  and  my  inability  to  cope  with  them.    The  violently  rapid 
progression of my affliction has been such that I have had no control over it.  It can be character-
ized as an intense depression with a general apathy towards every aspect of my life.  I sought out 
professional help in the form of civilian and military counseling, from which a recommendation, 
concurring with my request, is enclosed. 
 
Up  to  this  point  I  feel  my  attitude  and  performance  at  work  has  been  adequate.    But  taking  into 
account  the  rate  of  my  deteriorating  psychological  state,  solely  held  up  by  the  hope  of  being 
released  from  active  duty,  I  can  no  longer  attest  to  my  stability.    Thus,  I  feel  I  am  no  longer  an 
asset to the Coast Guard, its goals, or missions. 
 
I have nothing left to hope for should you deny my request.  I feel it to be very likely that without 
the hope of getting out of the service to sustain me I will slip into a deeper depression.   
 
I have been as blunt as possible in hopes that you will recognize the sensitivity of this matter and 
act accordingly.  I also wish to thank you for giving of your time. 
 
On  January  23,  1995,  the  applicant’s  CO  submitted  the  discharge  package  and  recom-
mended that the applicant be honorably discharged because of his unsuitability due to the diag-
nosed  personality  disorder.    The  District  Commander  endorsed  the  package  and  recommended 

 

 

approval.    On  February  17,  1995,  the  Military  Personnel  Command  issued  orders  to  discharge 
the applicant within thirty days for “Unsuitability” with a JFX separation code. 

 
On  February  10,  1995,  the  applicant  underwent  a  pre-discharge  physical  examination.  

He admitted having suffered from depression, and the doctor wrote, “Situational depression sur-
rounding anticipated discharge.  Suicidal ideations in past.  Currently resolved.”  

 
On March 13, 1995, the applicant was discharged for “Unsuitability,” pursuant to Article 

12-B-16 of the Personnel Manual, with a JFX separation code and RE-4 reentry code.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 8, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board grant partial relief.  In so doing, he adopted the facts and 
analysis provided in an enclosed memorandum prepared by the Coast  Guard Personnel Service 
Center (PSC).   
 
 
PSC stated that although the application was not timely filed, it appears to be in the inter-
est  of  justice  to  grant  partial  relief.    PSC  stated  that  the  record  shows  that  the  applicant  was 
properly  informed  of  the  reason  for  his  discharge  and  did  not  object.    However,  PSC  noted, 
under current policy issued in ALCOAST 252/09, the applicant would have received separation 
JFY,  which  denotes  a  discharge  due  to  an  adjustment  disorder,4  and  RE-3G  reentry  code,  and 
“Adjustment Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation.  PSC noted that an RE-3G “would 
allow for reenlistment in any branch of the military upon proving the original disqualifying fac-
tor  had  been  resolved.”    PSC  noted  that  neither  the  JPD  separation  code  nor  “Breach  of  Con-
tract” is an authorized entry on a DD 214.  PSC recommended that the Board correct the appli-
cant’s DD 214 to show a JFY separation code, RE-3G reentry code, and “Adjustment Disorder” 
as the narrative reason for separation. 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

In  response  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  initially  sent  the  Board  an 
email stating that he had no objection to the Coast Guard’s recommendations for correcting his 
DD 214.  The next day, he sent the Board a request that he receive a separation code denoting a 
voluntary separation or resignation, such as BFY or KFY, as long as it would not affect his hon-
orable discharge or reentry code.   
 

                                                 
4  An  “adjustment  disorder”  is  “a  psychological  response  to  an  identifiable  stressor  or  stressors  that  results  in  the 
development of clinically significant emotional or behavioral symptoms. … The clinical significance of the reaction 
is indicated either by marked distress that is in excess of what would be expected given the nature of the stressor or 
by  significant  impairment  in  social  or  occupational  (academic)  functioning.”  DSM-IV-R,  at  79.    Adjustment 
disorders  are  normally  temporary,  as  the  symptoms  last  “no  longer  than  6  months  after  the  stressor  or  its 
consequences have ceased.” Id. at 81.  The common symptoms of adjustment disorders are anxiety, depression, and 
disturbance of emotions and conduct. Id. at 80.  Adjustment disorders are not personality disorders. Id. at 82.  

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
Chapter 5.B.2 of the Medical Manual in effect in 1995 lists the personality disorders that 
qualify  a member for  administrative discharge pursuant  to  Article 12 of  the Personnel  Manual.  
Dependent personality disorders are on the list.  Adjustment disorders do not appear on the list of 
personality  disorders.    Instead,  adjustment  disorders  are  listed  in  Chapter  5.B.3  of  the  Medical 
Manual,  which  states  that  they  “are  generally  treatable  and  not  usually  grounds  for  separation.  
However,  when  these  conditions  persist  or  treatment  is  likely  to  be  prolonged  or  non-curative 
(e.g. inability to adjust to military life …) process in accordance with [Article 12 of the Person-
nel Manual] is necessary.” 

 
Article 12.B.16.b. of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) in effect in 1995 
authorizes  enlisted  personnel  to  be  administratively  discharged  due  to  unsuitability  if  they  are 
diagnosed with one of the personality disorders listed in Chapter 5 of the Medical Manual. 
 
 
Article 12.B.16.d. of the Personnel Manual states that members with less than eight years 
of  service  who  are  being  recommended  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  must  (a)  be 
informed  in  writing  of  the  reason  they  are  being  considered  for  discharge,  (b)  be  afforded  an 
opportunity  to  make  a  statement  in  writing,  and  (c)  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  consult  with 
counsel if a less than honorable discharge is contemplated. 
 
 
Under  the  SPD  Handbook,  members  who  are  being  discharged  because  they  have  been 
diagnosed with a personality disorder must be assigned a JFX separation code, “personality dis-
order” as the narrative reason for separation, and either an RE-3G or RE-4 reenlistment code. 

 
ALCOAST 252/09, issued on April 29, 2009, states that the Department of Defense has 
created new separation codes to address the situation in which a member is unsuitable for mili-
tary service because of a diagnosed adjustment disorder that prevents the member from adapting 
to military life.  The ALCOAST specifies that the new separation code JFY should be used, and 
the re-entry code assigned can be either RE-3G or RE-4. 
 

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 over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  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.5 

 
2. 

 Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b)  and  33  C.F.R.  §  52.22,  an  application  to  the  Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant alleged that in 1995 he did not know the type 
                                                 
5 Under 10 U.S.C. § 1553(a), the Discharge Review Board has authority to upgrade veterans’ discharges only within 
the first 15 years from the date of discharge. 

 

 

of honorable discharge he received, which was documented in his military record on a DD 214.  
While the applicant might have forgotten the nature of his discharge and he may not have known 
the meaning of all the codes on his DD 214, documents in his military record show that he was 
fully  informed  of  the  reason  for  his  discharge  in  1995  and  did  not  object  to  it.    Therefore,  the 
Board finds that his application is untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  an 
application  if  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    In  Allen  v.  Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158,  164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  Board  “should  analyze  both  the  reasons  for  the  delay  and  the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review.”6 

 
4. 

The applicant has long delayed seeking correction of the alleged error in his rec-
ord.    However,  a  cursory  review  of  the  record  reveals  that  the  JAG  has  recommended  that  the 
Board grant partial relief.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to excuse 
the untimeliness of the application to consider the merits of the case. 
 

5. 

The applicant alleged that his DD 214 is erroneous and unjust and that he should 
have received a JDP separation code, “Breach of Contract” as his narrative reason for separation, 
and a reentry code that would allow him to reenlist.  The Board begins its analysis in every case 
by  presuming  that  the  disputed  information  in  the  applicant’s  military  record  is  correct  as  it 
appears in  his  record, and the applicant  bears the burden of proving by a  preponderance of the 
evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or unjust.7 Absent evidence to the contrary, 
the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out 
their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”8  

 
6. 

 
The  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  for  separation  originally  requested  by 
the  applicant  are  unauthorized.    DD  214s  are  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  in 
COMDTINST M1900.4D and the SPD Handbook, and the requested code and narrative reason 
for separation do not appear therein.  Therefore, the relief  originally requested by the applicant 
should be denied. 
 
 
The preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant was diagnosed with a 
dependent  personality  disorder  by  a  Navy  psychiatrist  after  he  attempted  suicide  by  driving 
toward the rail of a bridge across two traffic lanes.  When the psychiatrist recommended that he 
be discharged, the applicant  was informed of the  nature of his pending discharge, afforded due 

7. 

                                                 
6 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. 
Cir. 1995).   
7 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b)).   
8 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

process, and discharged in accordance with Article 12.B.16. of the Personnel Manual.  However, 
the Coast Guard has recommended that the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect a discharge 
due  to  an  adjustment  disorder  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  252/09  even  though  the  applicant  was 
never diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  The Coast Guard claimed that under current pol-
icy, the applicant would have been discharged for an adjustment disorder even though he was not 
diagnosed with one. 
 

8. 

The applicant complained that he should not have been diagnosed with anything 
on the basis of a single  session with  a psychiatrist  and that the psychiatrist  made the diagnosis 
and  recommended  his  discharge  only  because  he  knew  that  the  applicant  wanted  to  be  dis-
charged.    However,  the  psychiatrist’s  report  and  diagnosis  are  presumptively  correct,  and  the 
Board  is  not  persuaded  that  a  Navy  psychiatrist  would  have  made  a  diagnosis  he  knew  to  be 
false.9  Nevertheless, the Board notes that psychiatric conditions are not always clear, and diag-
noses are not always accurate.10  The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statis-
tical  Manual  Of  Mental  Disorders  (DSM-IV-R),  which  the  Coast  Guard  relies  on  when  diag-
nosing  members  with  psychological  conditions,11  states  that  a  “personality  disorder”  is  “an 
enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations 
of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adult-
hood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.”12  It further states that “[t]he diag-
nosis  of  Personality  Disorders  requires  an  evaluation  of  the  individual’s  long-term  patterns  of 
functioning ….  The personality traits that define these disorders must also be distinguished from 
characteristics that emerge in response to specific situational stressors or more transient mental 
states ….  The clinician should assess the stability of personality traits over time and across dif-
ferent situations.”13  Therefore, while it may be possible for a psychiatrist to diagnose someone 
with a personality disorder based on a single appointment, the fact that the psychiatrist made the 
applicant’s diagnosis after a single appointment casts some doubt on its accuracy. 

 
9. 

The Board also notes that the psychiatrist failed to explain in his report how the 
applicant’s  condition  met  the  diagnostic  criteria  for  a  dependent  personality  disorder  shown  in 
the  DSM-IV-R.    The  report  does  show  that  the  applicant  had  joined  the  Coast  Guard  to  try  to 
please  his  father  and  was  upset  because  his  father  had  rejected  his  attempt  to  strengthen  their 
relationship and because his girlfriend had broken up with him.  However, these events had all 
occurred within the previous five months and so do not necessarily reflect an enduring pattern of 
inner  experience  or  a  long-term  pattern  of  functioning,  as  required  under  the  DSM-IV-R.    The 
psychiatrist may have based his diagnosis on other behavior not included in his report, but it is 
not in the record before the Board.   

 
10. 

As  the  applicant  alleged,  the  diagnosis  of  personality  disorder  can  cause  signifi-
cant  prejudice  if  known  to  a  potential  employer  because  personality  disorders  are  considered 

                                                 
9 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
10 See, e.g., DSM-IV-R, p. 743. 
11 Coast Guard Medical Manual, Chap. 5.B.1. 
12 DSM-IV-R, p. 685. 
13 Id. at 686. 

 

 

permanent.    Because  government  and  civilian  employers  often  demand  to  see  former  service-
members’  DD  214s  before  hiring  them,  it  is  extremely  important  for  DD  214s  to  be  fair  and 
accurate  and  not  to  unduly  tarnish  servicemembers’  records  without  just cause.    In  the  Board’s 
experience,  members  assigned  the  separation  code  JFX  usually  have  been  diagnosed  with  a 
personality  disorder  or  a  chronic  adjustment  disorder  that  repeatedly  leads  to  inappropriate 
behavior or misconduct which fully supports their diagnoses.14  However, in the applicant’s case, 
the only evidence of misconduct is his self-reported suicidal gesture. 

 
11. 

It is very clear from the record, however, that the applicant  was very unhappy in 
the  military  and  strongly  desired  to  be  discharged.    If  he  had  been  discharged  since  2009,  he 
might well have received an adjustment disorder discharge due to his apparent inability to adapt 
to  military  life,  in  accordance  with  ALCOAST  252/09.    Given  the  paucity  of  the  documented 
evidence supporting the diagnosis of dependent personality order, the potential prejudice that can 
result from that diagnosis being reflected on the applicant’s DD 214, the fact that the applicant 
clearly did not adjust to military life, and the Coast Guard’s recommendation that the Board cor-
rect his record to reflect a discharge due to adjustment disorder with an RE-3G reentry code, the 
Board will order that these changes be made. 

 
12. 

In response to the advisory opinion, the applicant asked the Board to change his 
separation code to a voluntary one, such as BFY or KFY, instead of the involuntary code of JFY.  
The BFY code denotes an officer’s resignation of his commission and so would not be appropri-
ate.  The KFY code is  the voluntary equivalent  of the JFY code, but  the record shows that the 
applicant’s  discharge  was  initiated  by  the  command,  not  the  applicant,  and  his  agreement  with 
his  command’s  recommendation  did  not  render  his  discharge  voluntary.    Moreover,  members 
whose discharges are voluntary do not receive the same monetary transition benefits as members 
who are involuntarily discharged,15 and so changing his separation code to KFY could cause the 
Coast Guard to recoup any transition benefits he received.  Therefore, the Board will not correct 
the applicant’s separation code to a voluntary one. 

 
13. 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his reentry code to one that makes him 
eligible to reenlist.  Under ALCOAST 252/09, a member being discharged with the JFY separa-
tion code may receive either an RE-3G or an RE-4 reentry code.  The Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board upgrade the applicant’s reentry code to RE-3G, which would allow him to reenlist 
if  he  could  prove  to  a  military  recruiting  command  that  he  no  longer  has  the  condition  that 
caused him to  be discharged from the Coast  Guard in  1995.   Because RE-3 codes are now the 
default codes to be used unless a member’s record of misconduct clearly justifies an RE-4,16 the 
Board agrees that the applicant’s reentry code should be upgraded to RE-3G. 

                                                 
14  See, e.g., the following cases in which members were discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder:  BCMR 
Docket  Nos.  2012-021  (member  threatened  to  harm  others  or  the  cutter  if  required  to  board);  2010-002  (member 
discharged  after  several  petty  offenses  and  arrest  for  dealing  marijuana);  2007-028  (member  installed  history-
destroying  software  on  Coast  Guard  computer  so  he  could  browse  pornographic  websites  and  twice  overdosed  on 
drugs);  2005-082  (member  was  disruptive  and  disrespectful  and  repeatedly  threatened  to  harm  other  members); 
1999-037  (member  frequently  exhibited  inappropriate  sexual  behavior  over  two-year  period);  1998-099  (member 
twice arrested for indecent exposure).   
15 COMDTINST 1900.2A, Enclosure (5). 
16 ALCOAST 125/10, issued on March 18, 2010, states that, to align Coast Guard policy more closely to that of the 
Department of Defense, “[i]n cases where individuals are separated for cause and there is an option of assigning an 

 

 

 
14. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to correct the appli-
cant’s  DD  214  to  show  that  he  was  discharged  due  to  an  “Adjustment  Disorder”  with  a  JFY 
separation  code  and  RE-3G  reentry  code,  as  the  Coast  Guard  recommended.    Moreover,  these 
corrections should be made by issuing a new DD 214, rather than on a DD 215 correction form. 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                                                                                                                             
RE-1 (eligible for reenlistment), RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor), or RE-4, the RE-3 
is  the  normal  standard  unless  a  different  code  is  authorized  by  the  discharge  authority.”    For  example,  the 
ALCOAST notes that for members discharged because of alcohol incidents, an RE-3 code is prescribed unless the 
member engages in misconduct by, for example, incurring a DUI or refusing rehabilitative treatment, in which case 
an RE-4 code is prescribed. 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
  Block 26 shall be corrected to show that he received the separation code JFY. 

  Block 27 shall be corrected to show reentry code RE-3G. 
 
  Block 28 shall be corrected to show “ADJUSTMENT DISORDER” as the narrative 
reason for separation. 
 
  The  Coast  Guard  shall  issue  him  a  new  DD  214  reflecting  these  corrections,  rather 
than issuing him a DD 215. 
 
  The following notation shall be made in block 18 of the new DD 214:  “Action taken 
pursuant to order of BCMR.” 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Katia Cervoni 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

 

 

   
 Lynda K. Pilgrim