DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-128 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on April 24, 2012, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  18,  2013,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was discharged with 
2 years of active duty instead of 1 year, 11 months, and 7 days.  He stated that he needs 2 years 
active  duty  to  qualify  for  health  care  through  the  Department  of  Veterans Affairs  (DVA).    He 
enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on April  28,  1986,  and  was  discharged  on April  7,  1988,  with  an  
honorable  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder,  a  JMB 
(unsuitability-personality disorder), and a RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  suffered  an  injustice  because  he  was  discharged  short  of 
having two  years of active duty.  He alleged that  the injustice occurred because  the speed with 
which  he  was  discharged  created  confusion  in  the  process  and  he  now  questions  whether  he 
freely gave up his right to submit a statement rebutting his discharge.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  although  his  DD  214  shows  unsuitability  as  the  reason  for  his 
separation,  his  psychiatric  evaluation  from  MacDill  Air  Force  Base  states  that  a  “pattern  of 
events  up  to  present  suggests  unsuitability  for  active  duty  service.    Depression  experienced  by 
member seems related to personality and circumstances.”  The applicant asserted that a medical 
board  was  never  convened  to  explain  the  meaning  of  “personality  and  circumstances.”  The 
MacDill  psychiatric  evaluation,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  record,  shows  that  the  applicant  was 
diagnosed  with  “mixed  personality  disorder  with  borderline,  obsessive-compulsive,  and 
immature features.”  The psychiatric report also states the following: 

 

 

 

This individual was found free from mental disease or mental defect and has the 
mental capacity to understand the nature and probable consequences of all of his  . 
. .   acts.  He . . . possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of 
any proceedings against him . . .  and to intelligently cooperate in his . . . defense, 
if applicable.   

 
The  applicant  stated  that  since  his  discharge  he  has  suffered  from  severe  mental  health 
 
issues, such as anxiety and panic attack disorders, major depression, and agoraphobia.  He stated 
that he recently learned that his mental issues are related to his military service.  He stated that he 
was an EMT on active duty and witnessed many graphic and gruesome images that he continues 
to  recall.    The  applicant  believes  that  he  suffers  from  PTSD  as  a  result  traumatic  events  he 
observed or participated in while an EMT in the service.    
 
The applicant stated that he is asking to be granted the 21 days that he was “shorted by 
 
expedited discharge so that I can receive eligibility [ for DVA] status . .  . These [21] days are all 
I seek, and are what I believe to be the injustice in the application for correction of [my] military 
record.” 
 

The  applicant  asserted  that  he  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error  until  October  15,  2011 
because  his  “mental  health  disorder  clouded  the  injustice  and  the  service  connection  was  just 
realized.”   
 

BACKGROUND 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 28, 1986.   On February 8, 1988, the 
 
applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant that the CO had initiated action to 
discharge the applicant from the Coast Guard under Article 12-B-16 of the Personnel Manual for 
a  “mixed  personality  disorder  with  border-line  obsessive-compulsive  and  immature  features.” 
The  CO  advised  the  applicant  that  he  would  be  provided  with  the  opportunity  to  consult  with 
legal counsel and that he had the right to make a statement.   
 
 
On  February  8,  1988,  the  applicant  signed  a  document  in  which  he  acknowledged  the 
proposed discharge, that  he was provided the opportunity to  consult  with a lawyer, and that  he 
did  not  desire to  submit a statement in  his  own behalf.  The notification  of proposed discharge 
document  read  as  follows:    “I  do/do  not  (circle  one)  desire  to  submit  a  statement  in  my  own 
behalf.”  On the document, both the do and do not were circled with an X over the do and a line 
through the do not.  However, the words “do not” (desire to submit a statement) with the initials 
E.S. were handwritten under the lined-through “do not.” 
 
 
On  February  19,  1988,  the  CO  asked  the  Commandant  to  discharge  the  applicant  by 
reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  personality  disorder.    The  CO  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been 
diagnosed  with  a  “mixed  personality  disorder  with  borderline  obsessive  compulsive  and 
immature features.”   
 

 

 

On March 12, 1988, the Commandant approved the applicant’s discharge from the Coast 
 
Guard by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.  The discharge was to be effected 
within 30 days from March 12, 1988. 
 
 
On March 23, 1988, the applicant underwent a separation physical.  He noted that he had 
received  psychiatric  care,  to  which  the  doctor  noted  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  a  mixed 
personality  disorder  on  December  30,  1987.    The  examining  physical  found  the  applicant 
qualified for discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
findings of his separation physical and that he agreed with them.   

On April 7, 1988, the  applicant  signed  a document  stating he had been informed of the 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On October 3, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief because the application was untimely.  
In this regard, the JAG stated the following; 
 

Applicant states that he delayed filing his application because his “mental health 
disorders  clouded  the  injustice  and  the  service  connection  was  just  realized.”  
Applicant,  however,  was  aware  in  1988  that  he  was  being  discharged  for 
unsuitability  due  to  a  personality  disorder,  and  his  DD  Form  214,  which  he 
signed, shows that at  the time of discharge, he had less than two  years of active 
duty.   Therefore, the applicant knew or should have known of the alleged error at 
the time of his discharge from the Coast Guard.    
 
In determining whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the time limitations 
on applications, the Board has been directed to consider the reasons for the delay 
and the plaintiff’s potential for success on the merits, based on a cursory review    
. . . .” Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 166 (D.D.C. 1992).  A cursory review in 
this  case  reveals  that  the  applicant  is  not  likely  to  prevail  on  his  claim.  
Applicant’s  request  is  for  a  correction  to  his  record  to  show  that  he  served  on 
active  duty  for  twenty-four  months  so  that  he  is  eligible  for  VA  benefits.  
Applicant  has  not  proven,  however,  that  he  served  on  active  duty  in  the  [Coast 
Guard] for twenty-four months.  His DD Form 214 shows that he served one year, 
eleven months, and ten days on active duty.  Applicant has submitted nothing to 
show  that  this  calculation  is  incorrect.    Moreover,  applicant  has  failed  to  prove 
that his discharge processing was in error or unjust.  Applicant acknowledged the 
proposed  discharge  and  offered  no  objection  to  it.   Therefore,  because  applicant 
has  submitted  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  calculation  is  incorrect  or  that  the 
discharge  was  unjust,  the  [Coast  Guard]  recommends  that  the  Board  deny 
applicant relief in this case.     

 

The JAG attached a memorandum from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) 
as a part of the advisory opinion.  PSC noted that the application was not timely and  should be 
denied for that reason.  PSC stated that the Coast Guard followed its policies and procedures in 

 

 

its  decision  to  discharge  the  applicant  for  unsuitability.    There  are  no  requirements  to  retain  a 
member with less than two years of service on active duty for any duration of time to meet DVA 
benefit  qualifications.        PSC  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  presumptively  correct  and  the 
applicant’s request should be denied.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

The  Board  was  unable  to  send  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard 

because  the  applicant  moved  his  residence  and  did  not  provide  the  Board  with  a  new  address.   
Applicants are advised by letter to keep the BCMR informed of their current address.   

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6) 
 

Article  12-B-16  provides  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  personality 

disorders as listed in the Medical Manual. 
   
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 

Chapter  5.B.2.  lists  the  following  as  personality  disorders:    Paranoid,  Schizoid, 
Schizotypal,  Obsessive  Compulsive,  Histrionic,  Dependent,  Antisocial,  Narcissistic,  Avoidant, 
Borderline, Passive-aggressive, and Personality disorder NOS. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

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 section 1552 of title 10 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  
 
 
2.    The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military  record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  the  alleged 
error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.      The  applicant  asserted  that  he  discovered  the  alleged 
error  on  November  15,  2011.      However,  he  knew  or  should  have  known  at  the  time  of  his 
discharge  in  1984  that  he  had  served  less  than  24  months  on  active  duty  because  his  DD  214, 
which he signed, shows that he had served for 1 year, 11 months, and 7 days.   The application 
was submitted approximately 24 years beyond the statute of limitations and was untimely. 
 
 
3.  The applicant asserted that the  Board should  excuse the untimeliness  because  of  his 
alleged  mental  disorder,  which  “clouded  the  injustice  and  the  service  connection  was  just 
realized.”    However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  applicant’s  personality  disorder  or  his  more 
recent mental diagnoses prevented him from having the judgment and acumen necessary to file a 
timely  BCMR  application.    The  applicant’s  reason  for  not  filing  his  application  sooner  is  not 
proven.  Nor is it persuasive to the Board.   

 

 

 
 
4.  Although the application is untimely, the Board must still perform  at least a cursory 
review  of  the  merits  to  determine  whether  it  is  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations.    In  Allen  v.  Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158,  164  (D.D.C.  1992),  the  court  stated  that  in 
assessing 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 stated that "the longer the delay has been and the weaker the 
reasons  are  for  the  delay,  the  more  compelling  the  merits  would  need  to  be  to  justify  a  full 
review."  Id. at 164, 165. 

 
 
5.  A cursory review of the merits indicates that the applicant is not likely to prevail  on 
his application because he simply did not serve on active duty for 24 months.  His DD 214 shows 
that he served for 1 year, 11 months, and 7 days.  He has offered nothing to show that he served 
for a longer period of time.  In addition, Article 12-B-16 of the Personnel Manual authorizes an 
administrative  discharge  due  to  a  diagnosed  personality  disorder.  The  applicant  was  diagnosed 
with  a  “mixed  personality  disorder  with  border-line  obsessive-compulsive  and  immature 
features” prior to his discharge. A personality disorder is not considered a physical disability and 
therefore  the  applicant  was  not  entitled  to  a  medical  board.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
applicant was mentally incompetent when he initialed the words “do not” when asked whether he 
wanted to make a statement.   Moreover, the applicant has not shown that his recently diagnosed 
mental conditions were incurred while on active duty.  The applicant was discharged in 1988 and 
submitted  evidence  stating  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  depression  and  panic  disorder  in  2004, 
some 16 years after he left the Coast Guard.  Nothing except the applicant’s statement connects 
these recently diagnosed conditions to the applicant’s active duty.   
  
 
the interest of justice to excuse the untimeliness. 

 
6.   Accordingly, the application should be denied because it is  untimely  and  it is  not in 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 
 
  

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG  for  correction  of  his  military 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 
 Ashley A. Darbo 

 

 
 

 
 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

record is denied.