DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-111 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 February 25, 2011, 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 December 22, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was honorably discharged from active duty on July 28, 1982, asked 
the Board to correct to make him eligible for veterans’ benefits from the Department of Veter-
ans’ Affairs (DVA).  He stated that he is currently ineligible because he did not complete at least 
24 months of continuous active duty and he was not discharged due to disability, hardship, or an 
early release program.  The applicant alleged that he was released early from active duty because 
of chronic seasickness.  Although he had been given shots and pills to try to alleviate his sea-
sickness, the doctor stopped prescribing the medications because, he told the applicant, they were 
slowing his heart rate down.  The applicant also alleged that “the motion sickness brought about 
an increase in my blood pressure” and that he “should have gone before a medical board … to 
determine the exact cause for early release.”  The applicant alleged that he discovered the error 
in his record in October 2010. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On October 27, 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  During his enlistment 
physical examination on October 28, 1981, he reported no history of motion sickness, and his 
blood  pressure  measured  126/88  while  sitting,  122/82  while  recumbent,  and  132/100  while 
standing. Upon completing boot camp, the applicant was assigned to a cutter.  
 

 
Medical notes in the applicant’s record show that while aboard the cutter, he was repeat-
edly treated for severe episodes of seasickness.  A doctor reported that the applicant “remains 
sick with or without medications. … Patient a good worker inport but non-functional underway.  
Does not desire separation from service, but explained that if unable to be retained as fit for sea 
duty, the CG may take that direction.”  The doctor noted that the seasickness medications were 
making the applicant too drowsy to work.  The medical records also show that his blood pressure 
was recorded as 108/72 on March 9, 1982, and 110/70 on March 25, 1982. 
 
 
On June 3, 1982, the commanding officer (CO) of the applicant’s cutter recommended 
that the applicant be discharged due to motion sickness in accordance with Article 12-B-12 of 
the Personnel Manual.  The CO stated that “even with medication, he is only able to function 
marginally at best.  [He] does not desire separation from the Coast Guard, however, he is consi-
dered not capable of performing acceptably in any capacity afloat.” 
 
On July 14, 1982, the applicant underwent a physical examination pursuant to his pend-
 
ing discharge.  He reported that he was in good health except when he was aboard ship and sea-
sick.  The doctor noted that his blood pressure was 130/82 while sitting, 132/84 while recumbent, 
and 134/82 while standing.  He recommended that the applicant follow up with more blood pres-
sure tests in three months but found the applicant fit for discharge.  The applicant signed a form 
agreeing with the doctor’s finding that he was fit for discharge. 
 
 
On July 28, 1982, the applicant was honorably  discharged for the “convenience of the 
Government” with a JFV separation code and an RE-3X reenlistment code.  The JFV separation 
code means that he had a “condition, not a disability, interfering with performance of duty.”  The 
RE-3X code meant that he was eligible to reenlist except for the fact that he had motion sickness.  
The applicant had completed 9 months and 2 days of active duty. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On June 22, 2011, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  The appli-
 
cant stated that about six or eight months after his discharge, he sought benefits at a local DVA 
hospital and was denied because he did not have 24 months of continuous service.  He accepted 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 2, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board deny relief in this case.  He stated that the applicant should be denied because it is 
untimely and because the applicant “has not provided any relevant documentation or rationale to 
support his position.  Based on the information of record, there is no error or injustice.” 
 
 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by 
the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    The  PSC  stated  that  under  the  Coast  Guard  Medical 
Manual, members with incapacitating motion sickness are not entitled to medical boards; instead 
they are administratively discharged.  The PSC stated that the records show that the applicant 
was discharged because of motion sickness and that he has not proved that his records are erro-
neous or unjust. 
 

that decision because he did not know any  better.  However, in  October 2010, he went to an 
unemployment office, which contacted the DVA on his behalf.  Through the DVA, he learned 
that because he had served over six months of continuous active duty and received an honorable 
discharge,  he  should  be  eligible  for  all  veterans’  rights  and  privileges.    The  applicant  again 
alleged that while in the Coast Guard, the doctor declined to give him more shots or pills for his 
seasickness because they were slowing his heart rate down. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
The Coast Guard Medical Manual contains the regulations governing members with vari-
ous  medical  conditions.    Chapter  9.A.3.h.  of  the  Medical  Manual  states  that  “Members  that 
manifest chronic motion sickness, that do not respond to conventional therapy, and are unable to 
perform their duties as a result, will be considered for administrative separation from active duty 
as per the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series).” 
 
 
Chapter 3.F.8.c.(2) of the Medical Manual states that members may be disqualified from 
service  and  processed  for  a  physical  disability  evaluation  if  they  have  been  diagnosed  with 
“hypertensive  cardiovascular  disease  and  hypertensive  vascular  disease,”  as  evidenced,  for 
example, by “diastolic pressure consistently more than 90 mm Hg following an adequate period 
of therapy on an ambulatory status.” 
 
 
sickness may be discharged for the convenience of the government. 
 

Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual states that servicemembers with chronic motion 

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. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

The applicant alleged that he discovered the error in his record in October 2010.  
However,  the  record  shows  that  he  knew  in  1982  that  he  was  being  discharged  for  chronic 
motion sickness, rather than because of a physical disability, hardship, or early release program.  
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application should be filed within three years of the applicant’s 
discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  The Board finds that the application was not timely 
filed because it was filed more than 25 years after the applicant knew he had been discharged for 
chronic motion sickness.   

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 excusing 
the untimeliness of an application, 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.”  Id. at 164-65; see Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

The applicant stated that he only recently discovered that he should be eligible for 
veterans’  benefits  through  the  DVA.    However,  he  also  stated  that  he  was  told  that  he  was 
ineligible for veterans’ benefits six to eight months after his discharge in July 1982.  The record 
before the Board contains no information that justifies the applicant’s long delay in seeking cor-
rection of the alleged error. 

The Board’s cursory review of the merits of the case shows that the applicant was 
discharged because of chronic motion sickness that (a) did not improve with medical treatment 
and (b) interfered with his performance of duty.  The doctor reported that the applicant remained 
seasick “with or without medications” and was “non-functional underway.”  Therefore, in accor-
dance with Chapter 9.A.3.h. of the Medical Manual, the applicant was subject to an administra-
tive discharge because he had “chronic motion sickness, that [did] not respond to conventional 
therapy, and [was]  unable to perform [his] duties as a result.”   The record shows that he was 
properly discharged for the convenience of the government pursuant to Article 12-B-12 of the 
Personnel Manual.  The applicant’s military and medical records showing that he was discharged 
because of chronic motion sickness are presumptively correct.  33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Motion 
sickness, even if chronic and unresponsive to medical treatment, is not considered a disability, 
and it does not entitle a member to a medical board or disability separation.  Although the appli-
cant claimed his seasickness medication was affecting his blood pressure, there is no evidence in 
his medical records showing that he was ever diagnosed with hypertension while on active duty 
or that his blood pressure was ever measured at a level that met the requirements for such a diag-
nosis.  The Board finds that there is no evidence supporting the applicant’s allegation that he was 
or should have been discharged because of a disability.  Therefore, the Board finds that his claim 
cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because it is untimely and 
lacks merit.  However, whether the applicant is eligible for veterans’ benefits can only be deter-
mined by the DVA.  If he has not recently consulted the DVA about his eligibility, he should do 
so again. 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

military record is denied. 

   

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Barbara Walthers  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

ORDER