DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-095 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
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 
case  on  April  14,  2006,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military and medical records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 11, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record so that the Coast Guard is 
responsible  for  her  pain  and  suffering,  medical  bills,  lost  wages,  any  permanent 
disability, and any other losses resulting from or related to a left knee injury that she 
allegedly incurred while in recruit training.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  on  August  6,  2004,  while  in  recruit  training  another 
recruit ran into the applicant knocking her into a locker.  She stated that as a result of 
hitting  the  locker,  her  kneecap  "popped  out"  and  she  was  taken  by  ambulance  for 
treatment.  On  September  3,  2004,  after  several  weeks  of  treatment,  the  Coast  Guard 
discharged  the  applicant  with  an  uncharacterized  discharge,  by  reason  of  failed 
medical/procurement  standards,  with  an  RE-3G1  reenlistment  code  and  a  JFW2 

                                                 
1   An RE-3G reenlistment code means that the applicant is eligible for enlistment except for disqualifying 
factor:  failed medical/physical standards.   
 

separation code.   In letters to both her congressman and senator she denied that her 
injury was preexisting and she asserted that the Coast Guard medical report failed to 
state  that  another  recruit  ran  into  her  and  knocked  her  into  a  locker.    The  applicant 
stated  that  she  was  discharged  without  benefits  or  compensation  and  that  she 
desperately needed help.  She alleged that the Coast Guard did not properly report how 
her  injury  happened  and  that  it  did  not  properly  discharge  her.    She  stated  that  she 
wants to be made whole in every way. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD 

 

On  May  6,  2004,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  delayed  entry  program.3    On 
August 3, 2004 she was discharged from the delayed entry program and enlisted in the 
regular Coast Guard for four years.   She did not indicate any health problems on her 
enlistment medical history report form or on her pre-training medical report form.      
 
 
On August 6, 2004, the applicant reported to the emergency room for treatment 
of left knee pain.  The treatment record states that the applicant reported that she was at 
a  locker  when  her  knee  popped  out  and  she  fell  causing  it  to  hit  the  locker.    The 
treatment record further reports that the applicant stated, " [a] similar episode occurred 
at age 17 when [she] slipped at work."  The applicant was diagnosed with subluxation 
(partial dislocation) of the left knee, for which she was treated with Motrin, placed on 
crutches, and told to return for a follow-up in three days.   
 
The applicant had a physical therapy consult on August 10, 2004.  The physical 
 
therapist  noted  that  the  applicant  had  suffered  a  previous  dislocation  four  months 
earlier but did not note it on her MEPS physical. 
 
 
Subsequent to the emergency room treatment and physical therapy, the recruit 
training medical officer found that the applicant did not meet the minimum standards 
for enlistment and retention in the Coast Guard due to a recurrent patella dislocation.  
He found her prognosis for further military service to be good.  He further stated the 
following on the recruit discharge summary report: 
 

Recruit is a 18-year old female who initially presented to medical in her 
first  week  of training complaining  of  left  knee  pain  after  a  self  reducing 
patella dislocation.  [The applicant] reports that she has had this problem 
once before where it kept her out of commission for a couple of months.   
She  was  first  treated  for  the  second  of  her  patellar  dislocations  on  6 

                                                                                                                                                             
2   A JFW separation code means that the applicant was involuntarily discharged due to failure to meet 
established medical and/or physicals procurement standards.   
3   The delayed entry program is a recruiting tool that allows the Coast Guard to enlist members in the 
Reserve for up to 180 days, at which time or before they are required to join the regular Coast Guard and 
are discharged from the Coast Reserve.   

August 2004 with knee immobilization and crutches.  The hope was that 
she  would  progress  quickly  with  daily  PT  and  conditioning.    She 
remained on the ward and initially made good progress to the extent that 
she could bear some weight and walk without the use of crutches.  She has 
however reached a clinical endpoint.  The x-rays, MRI and exam support 
the diagnosis of a second dislocation (recurrent).  [The applicant] should 
be sent home for rest and conditioning.  Due to the nature of this injury, 
its  pre-existence,  possible  re-occurrence  is  common.    [The  applicant] 
should  follow-up  with  an  orthopedic  surgeon  at  home.    Likelihood  for 
future service is good.  If after a sixth month of demonstrated stability in 
the  knee  and  clearance  from  an  orthopedic  surgeon,  consideration  for 
USCG military can be made at that time.    
 
 
On  August  31,  2004,  the  health  services  technician  prepared  a  memorandum 
 
notifying  the  applicant's  command  that  the  medical  officer  had  found  the  applicant 
disqualified for continued service due to recurrent dislocation of the left patella.  The 
memorandum also stated that the applicant had been informed of the medical officer's 
findings and recommendation that she be processed for discharge.  The applicant did 
not  request  a  waiver  of  the  disqualifying  condition,  and  indicated  her  desire  not  to 
request  a  waiver  by  circling  the  word  "did  not"  and  writing  her  initials  underneath 
when asked if she wanted to request a waiver.  The applicant also acknowledged with 
her signature that she had read and understood the information in the memorandum 
and that she had had the opportunity to ask questions pertaining to her condition.   
 
 
An  August  31,  2004  entry  was  placed  in  the  applicant's  health  record  entitled 
"SUBSTITUTION  PHYSICAL  EXAMINATION"  for  the  purpose  of  discharge.    The 
applicant  acknowledged  with  her  signature  a  recommendation  that  she  was  fit  for 
discharge  with  no  limitation  and  that  she  denied  any  other  injury  or  illness.    On 
September 3, 2004, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard.  She had served 
for one month and one day.  
 

The applicant submitted a medical report of an examination performed after her 
discharge  by  a  civilian  physician,  Dr.  B.    She  argued  that  his  examination  proves  the 
Coast  Guard's  diagnosis  of  a  second  dislocation  was  incorrect.    She  stated  Dr.  B's 
medical  report  verifies  that  her  "past  history  is  absolutely  normal."  In  the  history 
portion of Dr. B's initial examination of the applicant on September 14, 2004, he wrote 
the following: 
 

This eighteen-year old white female is seen for orthopedic evaluation with 
the chief complaint of pain in the left knee.  She smashed her knee into a 
locker.  She knocked her kneecap out of place.  This happened on 08-06-04 
at boot camp for the Coast Guard.  The knee throbs.  It gives way.  It is 
made worse whenever she puts pressure on it.  It does not lock.  It grinds 

and  it  pops.    Icing  it  and  elevating  it  will  make  it  better.    Standing  for 
long-periods of time will hurt.  She describes an aching, stabbing pain.  On 
a pain scale of 10 she rate it as a 5.  Ninety-five percent of the time she has 
pain. 
 
Her past history is absolutely normal.   

 

Dr. B reported that the X-rays of the applicant's knee show that the applicant's 
patella  "rides  pretty  nice"  on  the  merchant  view  and  that  on  the  bent  knee  PA  view 
every thing looks normal.  The lateral view of the x-ray showed that the applicant had a 
very  long  infrapatellar  tendon  with  patella  alta.4    Dr.  B's  impression  was  that  the 
applicant  suffered  from  "patellofemoral  syndrome,5  left  knee,  with  patella  alta  and 
ligamentous laxity.6  He recommended isometric exercises rather than surgery at that 
time. 
 
 
In  a  January  5,  2005  note  of  an  office  visit  regarding  the  applicant's  ability  to 
perform a job with the post office, Dr B wrote that the applicant reported that her knees 
give her occasional difficulty.  He stated that his examination revealed patellofermoral 
crepitus, both knees and diagnosed her with "patellofemoral syndrome, left knee patella 
alta,  ligamentous  laxity.    He  stated  that  "[the  applicant]  does  not  need  any  surgical 
procedures.  As far as I'm concerned, she can do whatever she so desires.  I don't find 
anything seriously wrong with her.  It is my opinion she is capable of working for the 
post office."    
 
 
The record indicates that the applicant did not visit Dr. B again until September 
2005,  during  which  month  she  had  an  MRI  performed  on  the  knee.    The  radiologist 
interpreted  the  MRI  as  showing  the  following:    "  1.    Patella  is  somewhat  laterally 
positioned at knee but frank dislocation is not identified at present time.  2.  Patella tear 
involving  upper  surface  of  posterior  horn  of  medial  meniscus.    Tear  is  linear  and 
horizontal."   
 

                                                 
4   Petella alta is an abnormally high kneecap.  See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 29th edition, p. 
1335.   
 
5   "Patellofemoral syndrome is characterized by a group of symptoms that are easily diagnosed and often 
respond to simple management.  The common presentation is knee pain in association with positions of 
the knee that result in increased or misdirected mechanical forces between the kneecap and the femur.  
See http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic101.htm  
 
6 
https://www.caringmedical.com/conditions/ligament_laxity.htm 
 

ligaments. 

Ligament 

 

See 

laxity 

is 

defined 

as 

loose 

 
Dr.  B  wrote  in  a  medical  note  dated  November  30,  2005,  that  he  advised  the 
applicant to undergo a Maquet procedure.7  A medical note dated December 30, 2005, 
states that surgery was done three weeks ago. 
 

The applicant submitted evidence of fourteen statements of insurance payments 
for  doctor  visits  and  surgery.    She  is  requesting  reimbursements  for  these  costs.    The 
applicant also complained that upon discharge the Coast Guard would not send her to 
her grandparents home in New York, but rather to her home of record, Orlando, FL.  In 
this regard, the applicant stated the following:   
 

I was transported to Philadelphia airport and left with a voucher to fly to 
Orlando even though it was known that the Orlando airport was closed 
due to the hurricane.  I asked to be shipped to N.Y. to my grandparents 
instead and was told the voucher was good for my home state of record 
and  the  Coast  Guard  would  not  change  it.    I  was  left  stranded  at  the 
airport so I called my mother in Lake Mary, Florida.  She bought a plane 
ticket to Tampa and picked me up that night. 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On  August  22,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.    The  JAG  adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  Commander,  Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  as  the  Coast  Guard's  advisory  opinion.      CGPC 
made the following conclusions: 

 
1.  The applicant contends that her record is incorrect in that there lacks 
notation  that  she  was  pushed  by  another  recruit  which  resulted  in  her 
knee injury.  The applicant's record makes no mention of another recruit 
causing her injury and contrary to her statement to the BCMR, the record 
indicates  that  the  applicant's  "knee  popped  out  and  she  fell  causing  her 
knee  to  hit  the  locker"  .  .  .  The  applicant  has  not  substantiated  any 
error/injustice in this regard other than her own statement made after the 
fact.   

 

2.    The  applicant  states  in  her  BCMR  application  that  the  record  is 
incorrect  in  that  she  never  had  a  previous  patella  dislocation.    The 

                                                 
7      Maquet  procedure  is  the  "anterior  elevation  of  the  tibia  tuberosity  (the  site  of  the  patellar  tendon 
insertion  . . .  It is based on the concept that articular pressure (and therefore pain) can be diminished if 
the patella is elevated off the trochlea."  See http://www.kneehippain.com/patient_pain_surgery.php p. 
5.     

accession  medical  history  prepared  by  the  applicant  states  no  history  of 
previous knee injury  . . . However, at the time of the applicant's injury on 
[August 6, 20048] she  disclosed that she  previously had a  similar  patella 
dislocation  at  age  17.    The  August  10,  2004  physical  therapy  narrative 
notes that the applicant disclosed a previous patella injury approximately 
4 months prior and that the injury was not noted on the MEPS physical . . .  
[The  recruit  discharge  summary  sheet]  indicates  that  her  physical 
examination,  X-ray,  and  MRI  results  support  a  recurrent  patella 
dislocation.  There is nothing to substantiate that the medical findings or 
the  applicant's  statements  [in  the  various  medical  entries]  are  incorrect.  
The applicant did not initially divulge any pre-existing injury at the time 
of her accession, however in the interest of her medical treatment for the 
current  dislocation,  she  disclosed  the  previous  dislocation  on  multiple 
occasions.  Additionally, there is no indication at the time of exam[ination] 
or  discharge  that  the applicant  contested  such  findings,  and  she  did  not 
request a waiver . . .  

 

3. 
  The  Coast  Guard  followed  well  established  procedures  when 
discharging the Applicant with an uncharacterized entry level discharge   
.  .  .  Recurrent  dislocation  of  the  patella  is  a  disqualifying  condition  for 
accession  .  .  .  The  Coast  Guard  elected  to  discharge  her  with  an 
uncharacterized discharge in lieu of a less favorable discharge due to her 
failure 
fraudulent 
enlistment.  The applicant received all indicated studies and medical care 
prior  to  discharge.    The  applicant's  record  does  not  support  any  of  her 
allegations and the applicant has not demonstrated any injustice or error 
with her record.  

to  divulge  a  disqualifying  medical  condition, 

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On September 25, 2006, the BCMR received the applicant's response to the views 
of  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  stated  that  she  did  not  list  any  history  of  knee 
trouble  on  her  enlistment  and  pre-training  medical  forms  because  she  never  had  any 
history of knee trouble.  She stated that she never saw a physician for any kind of knee 
pain  or  injury  prior  to  joining  the  Coast  Guard.    She  stated  that  she  played  soccer, 
softball and lacrosse with no prior knee pain or injury.  According to the applicant, her 
mother  denied  that  the  applicant  had  a  prior  history  of  knee  problems  during  a 
telephone conversation with Coast Guard personnel.   
 

                                                 
8      The  advisory  opinion  contained  an  incorrect  date  of  June  8,  2004.    In  fact  the  emergency  care  and 
treatment record shows the date of the applicant's injury as 06/08/04 corresponding to day, month, and 
year.   

 
The  applicant  questioned  how  she  was  able  to  pass  her  physicals  if  she  had 
incurred a knee injury four months earlier that had kept her out of commission for a 
couple  of  months  as  indicated  on  the  physical  therapy  consult  and  recruit  discharge 
summary report.  She stated that she  was given "3 physicals before she entered basic 
training and a 'pre-existing knee condition' was never mentioned to [her]." 
 
 
The  applicant  restated  her  contention  that  another  recruit  pushed  her  into  a 
locker causing the applicant's knee to slam into the locker and her kneecap to pop out.  
She  stated  that  it  was  only  after  her  discharge  and  arrival  home  that  she  began  to 
review  her  medical  records  and  discovered  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  "falsified  her 
medical report" leaving out crucial information of how she sustained the knee injury.  
The applicant queried how she could substantiate the alleged error or injustice in her 
record, other than by her own statement, when there was no investigation into or injury 
report of the knee injury.  She further stated that "[she] was an 18 year old female who 
enlisted in the service and placed her life, well-being and trust in the hands of he United 
States Coast Guard believing that the Coast Guard was going to protect her, not betray 
her and betray her is exactly what the Guard did.  The Guard relied on the naivety of an 
18-year old female knowing she would trust the Guard and never question the records 
until after she was discharged."   
 
 
With  respect  to  the  memorandum  she  signed  acknowledging  her  disqualifying 
condition and medical officer's recommendation, the applicant stated, "she was told that 
she  could  not  go  home  unless  she  signed  the  documents."      She  denied  that  the 
information contained in the memorandum was not explained to her and that when she 
asked  questions  she  was  told  "to  sign  [the  memorandum].    If  you  don't,  we  cannot 
discharge you."  
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Disability Statutes 
 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to per-
form the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical dis-
ability incurred while entitled to basic pay” may be retired if the disability is (1) perma-
nent and stable, (2) not a result of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 
years of service, “at least 30 percent under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in 
use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of the determination.”  Title 10 
U.S.C.  § 1203  provides  that  such  a  member  whose  disability  is  rated  at  only  10  or  20 
percent  under  the  VASRD  shall  be  discharged  with  severance  pay.    Title  10  U.S.C. 
§ 1214  states  that  “[n]o  member  of  the  armed  forces  may  be  retired  or  separated  for 
physical disability without a full and fair hearing if he demands it.” 
 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual 

 
 
Article  12.B.20  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  uncharacterized  discharges 
for entry-level separations for personnel who:  "a.  Have fewer than 180 days of active 
service  on  discharge,  and  b.  Demonstrate  poor  proficiency,  conduct,  aptitude  or 
unsuitability  for  further  service  during  the  period  from  enlistment  through  recruit 
training, or c. Exhibit minor pre-existing medical issues not of a disabling nature which 
do  not  meet  the  medical  physical  procurement  standards  in  place  for  entry  into  the 
Service."  
  

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 
 
2.  The applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or 
injustice  by  discharging  her  with  an  uncharacterized  discharge  due  to  "minor  pre-
existing  medical  issues  not  of  a  disabling  nature  which  do  not  meet  the  medical 
physical procurement standards in place for entry into the Service."  Three days after 
reporting  to  recruit  training  the  applicant  suffered  an  injury  to  her  left  knee.    The 
emergency  treatment  record,  the  physical  therapy  record,  and  the  recruit  discharge 
summary all state that the applicant admitted that she had suffered a similar injury to 
her knee prior to joining the service.  In this regard all three reports are consistent.   For 
instance  the  emergency  treatment  record  indicated  that  the  applicant  reported  a, 
"similar  episode  occurred  at  age  17  when  [patient]  slipped  at  work."    The  physical 
therapy  consult  reported  that  the  applicant  had  a  previous  patella  dislocation  four 
months ago.  The recruit discharge summary stated, "[the applicant] reports that she has 
had  this  problem  once  before  where  it  kept  her  out  of  commission  for  a  couple  of 
months."    
 

3.  In addition, the medical officer noted in the discharge summary that the "x-
rays, MRI, and exam[ination] support the diagnosis of a second dislocation (recurrent)."  
The  applicant  does  not  dispute  that  she  was  given  these  diagnostic  tests  and  in  fact 
signed the memorandum acknowledging that she had been informed of her condition 
and  the  medical  officer's  recommendation  and  that  she  had  been  provided  with  the 
opportunity to ask questions.  She offered no objections to the medical officer's findings 
and recommendation at that time.  Her argument that she could not go home unless she 
signed the memorandum is not proof that she failed to understand its contents or that 
she was coerced into signing it.   
 

4.  The applicant denied that she had suffered the same type of injury to her left 
knee  prior  to  entering  the  service  and  further  denied  that  she  had  ever  suffered  an 
injury to her knees.  In support of her contention, she offered Dr. B's statement that the 
applicant's  "past  history  is  absolutely  normal."  The  Board  is  not  persuaded  by  the 
doctor's  statement  because  it  does  not  prove  that  the  applicant  did  not  have  a  pre-
existing problem with her knee.  In this regard, Dr. B does not state that the applicant's 
past  history  with  respect  to  her  left  knee  is  absolutely  normal;  instead  he  makes  a 
general statement "her past history is absolutely normal" which could mean anything.  
Even if Dr. B's statement was in reference to the applicant's left knee, he provided no 
explanation for how he reached the conclusion that the applicant did not have a similar 
problem  with  her  knee  prior  joining  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Board  would  be  more 
persuaded  by  Dr.  B's  medical  report  if  he  had  stated  how  long  he  has  known  the 
applicant and whether he has treated her in the past.  Further yet, the Board would find 
Dr.  B's  statement  more  credible  if  Dr.  B  had  X-rays  of  the  applicant's  knee  prior  to 
joining  the  Coast  Guard  that  he  compared  with  the  current  x-rays  and  that  in  his 
professional  judgment  he  found  her  knee  to  be  normal  based  on  that  comparison.  
Without more, the Board finds that Dr. B. based his report of the applicant's report of 
her  history  after  her  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    Accordingly,  neither  the 
applicant's denial nor Dr. B's statement, whether considered together or singularly, are 
sufficient to prove that the applicant did not make the statements attributed to her by 
the three Coast Guard medical personnel mentioned above or that she did not in fact 
have a pre-service left knee condition.   

 
5.  In challenging the comment in the recruit discharge summary that the prior 
knee injury kept her out of commission for couple of months and the comment in the 
physical therapy consult that she had a similar problem four months ago, the applicant 
argued that she passed all of her physical examinations for entry into the Coast Guard.  
However, the Board notes that the applicant enlisted in the delayed entry program in 
May  2004  and  did  not  report  for  active  duty  until  August  3,  2004,  a  period  of 
approximately,  three  months.    Therefore,  it  is  possible  that  the  applicant  could  have 
incurred  the  injury  and  it  could  have  healed  during  this  three-month  period.    If  the 
applicant  did  not  mention  the  problem  during  her  enlistment  physicals  there  would 
have  been  no  need  for  the  Coast  Guard  to  perform  more  extensive  diagnostic 
examinations. The Board notes that the applicant affirmed on August 4, 2004 that there 
had  been  no  changes  in  her  health  since  her  MEPS  physical,  but  made  admissions  of 
having sustained a prior injury to Coast Guard medical personnel two days later.   
 
 
6.      The  applicant  makes  much  of  the  fact  that  the  emergency  medical  report 
allegedly failed to accurately report how her injury occurred.  She stated that she was 
pushed into a locker by another recruit and hit her knee causing the kneecap to pop out.  
The  emergency  treatment  report  stated  that  the  applicant  stated,  "she  was  at  locker 
when knee popped out and she fell causing her knee to hit locker."  The Board finds that 
that  description  of  how  the  injury  occurred  in  the  emergency  treatment  record  is 

consistent with what she reported to Dr. B, who wrote that "[The applicant] smashed 
her knee into a locker.  She knocked her knee-cap out of place."  There is no mention in 
Dr. B's report or Coast Guard medical reports of another recruit pushing the applicant 
into a locker causing her knee to dislocate.  The applicant has failed to prove that the 
description of her injury as stated in the emergency treatment record is inaccurate.   

 
7.  In light of the applicant's admission that she suffered a pre-existing injury to 
her  left  knee,  the  Coast  Guard  acted  with  leniency  by  discharging  her  with  an 
uncharacterized discharge, rather than by fraudulent enlistment9, which most probably 
would  have  resulted  in  an  RE-4  (not  eligible  to  reenlist)  reenlistment  code  and  may 
even have resulted in a general discharge under honorable conditions rather than the 
uncharacterized discharge she received.  

 
8.    The  applicant  made  several  other  complaints  and  allegations.    Those  not 
discussed  within  the  Findings  and  Conclusions  are  either  considered  to  be  without 
merit or not dispositive of the issues in this case.    

 
9.  The applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or 
injustice or that her discharge was improper.  Accordingly her request for relief should 
be denied. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
9   Article 12.B.18.b.2 of the Personnel Manual states that CGPC may discharge a member for misconduct 
who  procured  a  fraudulent  enlistment,  induction,  or  period  of  active  service  through  any  deliberate 
material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment that, if known at the time, might have resulted in 
rejection.    The  provision  further  states  that  the  Commanding  Officer,  Training  Center  Cape  May,  is 
delegated  final  discharge  authority  under  this  Article  in  these  specific  cases  for  members  assigned  to 
recruit  training  or  prior  service  training  program:    a.  Deliberately  concealed  criminal  records  or  other 
information  necessary  to  effect  enlistment.    b.    Any  current  or  past  medical  conditions  or  problems 
discovered  during  recruit  training,  or  prior  service  training  program,  which  would  have  prevented 
enlistment in the Coast Guard, had they been known.   

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

of her military record is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
  

        

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Charles P. Kielkopf