DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-130 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

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 on May 20, 2008, upon receipt 
of  the  applicant’s  completed  application,  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 February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant is a former first class cadet (1/c) at the United States Coast Guard Acad-
emy who was disenrolled at the end of his fourth and final year at the Academy without a degree 
or  a  commission.    He  asked  the  Board  to  order  the  Coast  Guard  to  award  him  a  Bachelor’s 
Degree  from  the  Academy  and  a  commission  as  a  regular  officer.    The  applicant  alleged  the 
following: 
 

I completed all classes and subjects with passing grades and earned my degree.  I was unable to 
pass the Commissioning Physical Fitness Exam (PFE) due to medical conditions that occurred at 
the Academy; specifically a pilonidal cyst[1] with surgeries, and an acquired scoliosis with bulging 
L4 and L5 discs.  It is my contention that had I been given appropriate care and physical therapy 
immediately following my final surgery, I would not have developed my subsequent back prob-
lems and I would have successfully completed the PFE and graduated with my class. 

 
 
Furthermore, if the  Board denies him an officer’s commission, the applicant asked the 
Board to correct his record to show that he was discharged as a boatswain’s mate second class 

                                                 
1 A pilonidal cyst is an abnormal pocket in the skin at the base of the spine, which is caused by ingrown hair or some 
other debris.  Such a cyst may be asymptomatic or it may become infected and form an abscess.  The initial treat-
ment is usually incision and drainage with removal of the ingrown hair or other debris, and this treatment is effective 
for 50 to 60 percent of patients.  If this treatment is not effective, a surgeon may perform an excision of the cyst.  See 
. 

(BM2/E-5)  instead  of  a  BM3/E-4.    He  alleged  that  section  2-6-03  of  the  Regulations  for  the 
Corps of Cadets states the following: 
 

First and Second Class cadets who accepted an appointment without any prior obligation to the 
Armed Forces of the U.S. who resign or who are disenrolled or summarily dismissed will be trans-
ferred to the “Individual Ready Reserve (RJ)” in the rating of Boatswain’s Mate second class or 
Boatswain’s Mate third class respectively (Seaman, if disenrolled for Suitability for Service rea-
sons), for a period of service equal to their service as a cadet. 

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of his medical records, which 

 
 
are included in the summary of the record below. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On June 30, 2003, the applicant reported to the Academy as a fourth class cadet (4/c).  He 
had graduated from high school with a 3.85 grade point average and was ranked 35th out of 310 
graduating students.  His SAT scores were 620 and 610 for the verbal and mathematics tests, 
respectively.2  His admissions package indicates that he was 5’5” tall and weighed 135 pounds, 
but other medical records show his height as 5’3”.3  His application for admission states that he 
was a member of his high school’s wrestling team.  As part of the admissions process, the appli-
cant took a PFE4 and scored a total of 239 points.  Pursuant to his enrollment, he signed a “State-
ment of Acceptance and Obligation,” which states the following in pertinent part: 
 

I have taken the five-part CGA Practice Physical Fitness Examination (PFE).  If my score was less 
than 250 points, I understand that I must maintain a score of 250 points or greater while a Cadet at 
the Academy and that I will be placed on probation if my score is less than 250.  I understand that 
I will take the PFE within two weeks of reporting to the Academy.  If I receive fewer than 200 
points, I understand that I will be recommended for disenrollment. 
 
If I complete the course of instruction at the Academy and accept an appointment as a commis-
sioned officer, I agree to serve at least five years as an officer in the Coast Guard. 
 
If I am separated from the Academy after commencement of my third academic year, I may be 
transferred to the United States Coast Guard Reserve in an appropriate enlisted grade or rating in 
an inactive status. 
 

                                                 
2 According to the Academy’s website, this year the mean SAT scores for incoming cadets were 639 for math and 
617 for verbal; the average high school grade point average was 3.8; and about 50% of incoming cadets ranked in 
the top 10% of their high school class. 
3 Under Figure 3-C-3 of the Coast Guard Medical Manual, the minimum height for an officer is 5’. 
4 A score sheet in the applicant’s record shows that he took this test on January 17, 2003.  The total score was a 
combined score based upon (a) how many pull-ups the person can do at one time; (b) how many sit-ups the person 
can do in two minutes; (c) how many inches the person can long jump; (d) how much time the person takes to per-
form a 300-yard shuttle run; and (e) how much time the person takes to run or walk 1.5 miles.  A minimum score of 
250 out of 500 possible points was required to be retained as a cadet, and a passing score of 325 was required to be 
eligible for a commission as an officer.  In the fall of 2006, the PFE was modified.  The new test consists of cadence 
push-ups, curl-ups (a type of sit-up), and a 1.5 mile run.  The minimum score for retention as a cadet was set at 155 
out of 300 possible points, and the passing score to receive a commission is 200.   

If I complete the course of instruction at the Academy and I decline to accept an appointment as a 
commissioned officer, I may be transferred to the Coast Guard Reserve for four years of active 
duty. 

 
 
The applicant’s cumulative class rank as determined by his military precedence average 
(MPA),  his  scores  on  the  military  precedence  index  (MPI),  term  and  cumulative  grade  point 
averages,5 and PFE scores for each school term are recorded in his record as follows:   
 

 Term MPI7  Term GPA  Cum. GPA  PFE Score/Grade 

61/100 
63/100 
64/100 
71/100 
70/100 
83/100 
69/100 
61/100 

1.99 
2.12 
1.95 
2.29 
2.75 
2.35 
2.12 
2.57 

1.99 
2.05 
2.02 
2.09 
2.23 
2.24 
2.23 
2.27 

290/D 
301/D 
248/F 
295/D 
none 
none 
132/F 
181/D 

Term 
Fall 2003 
Spring 2004 
Fall 2004 
Spring 2005 
Fall 2005 
Spring 2006 
Fall 2006 
Spring 2007 

 

MPA6 
256/279 
238/264 
242/255 
235/250 
228/241 
226/238 
234/238 
236/237 

Comments on performance evaluations in the applicant’s record indicate that he had per-
sistent trouble meeting academic and physical fitness standards but was very involved in several 
extracurricular activities, including the Windjammers Drum and Bugle Corps and the Regimental 
Band.  The Academy’s website indicates that in addition to their academic classes, cadets have a 
two-hour period for athletic training and two one-hour periods for military training or activities 
each weekday. 
 
 
In August 2004, the applicant scored 248 total points on the PFE, which was below the 
250 minimum standard for retention of a cadet.  Therefore, on September 3, 2004, he was placed 
in a “suspended disenrollment status” and notified that if he did not meet the minimum standard 
upon a retest by October 8, 2004, he would be recommended for disenrollment.  The applicant 
was  placed  on  Fitness  Probation  and  enrolled  in  Level  II  Remedial  Physical  Training.    The 
Director  of  Athletics  noted  that  there  were  “no  extenuating  circumstances  to  explain  why  he 
failed to meet minimum standards.”  In addition, on September 14, 2004, a doctor found that the 
applicant had no medical conditions that would preclude successful completion of the PFE. 
                                                 
5 The Academy’s Catalog of Courses indicates that it uses a 4.00 scale on which 1.00 denotes a “barely passing” D 
grade; 1.70 denotes a “barely satisfactory quality” C- grade; 2.00 denotes a “satisfactory quality” C grade; and 2.30 
denotes a “very satisfactory quality” C+ grade. 
6  The  Military  Precedence  Average  (MPA)  determines  a  cadet’s  precedence  within  the  class  (class  rank)  and 
ultimate position on the active duty promotion list if he receives a commission.  In adding up a cadet’s MPA, his 
cumulative  GPA  counts  for  70%,  his  cumulative  MPI  (see  footnote  7  below)  counts  for  25%,  and  his  Physical 
Development Competency (PDC), which is a combination of his PFE and swimming scores, counts for 5%.  UNITED 
STATES COAST GUARD ACADEMY, REGULATIONS FOR THE CORPS OF CADETS, sec. 3-3-03. 
7 The Military Precedence Index (MPI) is a numeric measure of a cadet’s military performance.  Each cadet may 
earn up to 100 points each term based on their summer performance evaluations, personal conduct, afloat qualifica-
tions, and task list completion.  Id. at sec. 3-3-04. 

 

On September 29, 2004, the applicant scored 276 points on the PFE and was subsequent-
ly removed from suspended disenrollment status.  The Head of the Department of Health and 
Physical Education sent the applicant a memorandum dated October 6, 2004, noting that because 
the applicant had not yet met the commissioning standard of 325, he would be placed in Level I 
Remedial Physical Training.  He further advised the applicant of the following: 
 

3.    You  will  not  be  released  from  Level  I  Remedial  Physical  Training  until  you  have  met  the 
commissioning standard at an official re-test date.  It is your responsibility to fully adhere to the 
remedial training program and to meet the commissioning standard as soon as possible.  Once you 
have, it is also your responsibility to maintain this level of physical fitness or exceed it. 
 
4.  Finally, remember that first class cadets must meet the commissioning standard at the January 
PFE of their first class year or they will be recommended for disenrollment. 

 
 
On January 27, 2005, the applicant was placed on academic probation.  He was advised 
that  he  would  remain  on  probation  until  he  showed  “significant  and  sustained  improvement.”  
Comments in the applicant’s record indicate that his poor grades were attributed to a “hobby of 
watching  movies.”    In  the  summer  of  2005,  the  Academic  Review  Board  recommended  his 
retention because his GPA was slowly rising.  The applicant remained on academic probation 
until February 22, 2006. 
 

On August 8, 2005, the applicant was diagnosed with a pilonidal cyst above the gluteal 
cleft  after  he  complained  of  pain,  “especially  when  attempting  sit-ups.”    However,  palpation 
indicated there was no abscess.  The applicant was placed on fit for limited duty (FFLD) status 
for ten days and prescribed Keflex and Naprosyn.8  On August 17, 2005, he was found fit for full 
duty (FFD). 
 

On September 9, 2005, the applicant complained of pain in the area of the pilonidal cyst 
when doing sit-ups.  He was found FFLD and advised not to do sit-ups for 30 days.  On October 
17,  2005,  a  physician’s  assistant  noted  that  an  abscess  had  formed  and  continued  his  FFLD 
status.  The applicant was again prescribed Keflex and Naprosyn.  On  November 10, 2005, a 
doctor incised and drained the cyst.  On November 28, 2005, the applicant was referred to a sur-
geon, Dr. A, for a consultation about excising the cyst.   

 
On January 9, 2006, the applicant underwent surgery by Dr. A to excise a recurrent pilo-
nidal cyst.  However, the wound did not heal properly, and the applicant underwent another exci-
sion on April 3, 2006.  The applicant was in FFLD status throughout this period and prescribed 
painkillers, including Percocet.  A medical note  dated February 1, 2006, states that his FFLD 
status meant “no sit-ups, running, or jumping.”  Another note, dated March 1, 2006, states that he 
was FFLD with “no sit-ups, no hard running” for 30 days. 
 

The  applicant’s  medical  record  contains  Dr.  A’s  notations  of  post-surgical  follow-up 
examinations describe the healing of the wound.  Dr. A’s final note, dated May 12, 2006, states 
that the applicant “is feeling well”; that the majority of the wound was completely intact but the 

                                                 
8 Keflex is an antibiotic drug.  Naprosyn is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.  See . 

lower 2 to 3 millimeters showed “a slight bit of tracking but otherwise clean at the current time”; 
and that the applicant would be away for the next three months.  A medical note in the record 
dated June 17, 2006, shows that the applicant was FFD. 
 
 
On September 1, 2006, the Director of Athletics recommended to the Superintendent of 
the Academy that the applicant be placed in a suspended disenrollment status because he had 
scored 132 points on the August 2006 PFE, while the new minimum standard for retention of a 
cadet was 155 points.  The Director of Athletics noted that the applicant did not take the PFE in 
the fall of 2005 or the spring of 2006 because of medical issues, but that the Head of the Depart-
ment of Health and Education had found that “no extenuating circumstances to explain why [the 
applicant]  failed  to  meet  minimum  standards.”    He  further  noted  that  the  applicant  would  be 
placed on in Level II Remedial Physical Training and on Fitness Probation.  The Head of the 
Department of Health and Education noted that the applicant had attributed his performance on 
the PFE to “a long recovery from his surgeries last year” but that the applicant had been “fit for 
duty for his summer assignment.” 
 
 
On September 5, 2006, the Superintendent of the Academy notified the applicant that he 
had been placed on Fitness Probation in suspended disenrollment status because of his failure to 
meet  the  new  minimum  standard  for  retention  of  155  points  on  the  August  2006  PFE.    He 
advised the applicant that he would be disenrolled if he failed to meet the minimum standard on 
a retest by October 16, 2006.  The Superintendent further informed him that if he did not accept 
the terms of the suspension, he could submit a letter of resignation or be disenrolled and that if 
he were disenrolled, he could appeal that action. 
 

On November 3, 2006, the applicant underwent a physical examination pursuant to his 
eligibility for a commission.  On his Report of Medical History, the applicant denied ever having 
suffered from back pain.  The doctor noted that the applicant had undergone an excision of a 
pilonidal cyst but that there were no sequelae and the condition was not disabling.  The applicant 
was deemed fit for full duty. 

 
On  December  4,  2006,  the  Superintendent  informed  the  applicant  that  he  had  been 
removed from suspended disenrollment status.  The applicant had exceeded the minimum reten-
tion standard for cadets by scoring 165 on the PFE by October 16, 2006.  The Superintendent 
also reminded the applicant that he needed to meet the commissioning standard of 200 points.  
The notification indicates that the applicant was to remain on Fitness Probation and in Remedial 
Fitness Level II Training until he met the commissioning standard. 
 

The applicant failed the PFE for commissioning in January 2007.  His total score was 181 
out of 300 possible points.  The minimum passing score for commissioning is 200.  A summary 
of his prior PFE tests printed from the Academy’s database on January 18, 2007, shows that he 
usually performed well on the push-ups, scoring more than 70 out of a possible 100 points; that 
on curl-ups (sit-ups), he usually scored about 50 out of a possible 100 points; and that on the 1.5 
mile run, he was usually slow and scored less than 50 points. 

 
On January 19, 2007, the Director of Athletics at the Academy sent a memorandum to the 

 
Academy Superintendent recommending the suspension of the applicant’s disenrollment:   

PFE History:  [The applicant] scored 181 points on the most recent test.  Last semester, he scored 
132  points,  and  was  placed  in  suspended  disenrollment  status  with  Fitness  Probation/Remedial 
Level II.  He later scored 165 points and was removed from suspended disenrollment status.  He 
also made progress over leave.  [His] PFE history is weak.  He has never met the commissioning 
standard.  His grades are the equivalent of three D’s and four F’s.  He did not take the test in the 
fall of 2005 or the spring of 2006 due to a medical condition. 
 
For the Record:  [The applicant] did not have any extenuating circumstance to explain his failing 
performance on  the PFE.  He did, however,  make progress toward the commissioning standard 
over leave period. 
 
Cadets are expected to develop a lifelong commitment to physical activity and to serve as a role 
model in their future positions as officers.  [The applicant’s] failure to maintain minimum fitness 
standards brings into question his ability to serve as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard. 

On January 30, 2007, the Superintendent of the Academy sent the applicant a Notifica-

 
 
tion of Suspended Disenrollment, which stated the following: 
 

 

 

1.  I am recommending that [the applicant] be placed in a suspended disenrollment status due to 
his  failure  to  meet  the  200  point  commissioning  requirement  on  the  Jan.  2007 Physical  Fitness 
Exam (PFE).  I recommend that he be required to pass this standard prior to March 2, 2007.  Fur-
ther, he should be placed on Fitness Probation for the entire semester and be required to take all 
re-tests.  If his scores regress, he should be disenrolled. 
 
2.  [The applicant] scored 181 points.  He has not met the commissioning standard before, but he 
did make progress in the remedial program and over leave in the fall semester.  He is currently 
enrolled in a Level 2 remedial fitness program under the supervision of the Health and Physical 
Education faculty.  If he cannot meet the fitness standard in a timely manner, his ability to perform 
as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard is in doubt. 

The  Director  of  Athletics  attached  to  this memorandum  a  report  from  the  Head  of  the 

 
 
Health and Physical Education Department, which included the following information: 
 

1.  Based on a review of your cadet record and a recommendation from the Director of Athletics, I 
have decided to retain you as a cadet in a suspended disenrollment status. 
 
2.  You have failed to meet the minimum standards on the Physical Fitness Examination (PFE).  
As a result, you have been placed in a remedial fitness program as well as Fitness Probation status.  
You will be retested no later than 2 March 2007.  Failure to meet the 200 point minimum standard 
by that date will result in your disenrollment.  In addition, you will remain in Fitness Probation 
status until the end of the semester and will take every retest.  If your scores regress on any of 
those tests, you will be subject to disenrollment. 
 
3.  If you do not elect to accept the stipulations outlined above, you have five (5) working days 
from the delivery of this letter to submit a letter of resignation or be disenrolled.  If disenrolled, 
you have the right to appeal this action to Commandant (CG-1) within five (5) working days of 
being notified.  Please be advised that a request for reconsideration can be entertained only if you 
present compelling evidence of extraordinary circumstances that prohibited you from performing 
at a satisfactory level.  You are strongly encouraged to consult with your Company Officer to dis-
cuss your plans and to assist you in this matter. 

1.  I am disenrolling  you  from  the Coast Guard Academy.  I find  you unsuitable for service as 
demonstrated  by  your  failure  to  pass  the  commissioning  standard  on  the  physical  fitness  exam 
(PFE).    I  have  considered  your  overall  Academy  performance  in  my  decision  to  disenroll  you.  
You will be discharged with your character of service listed as honorable.  You will receive the 
following separation code on your DD 214:  JHK (Involuntary discharge directed by established 
directive when a member’s performance is below accepted standards).  You will be transferred to 
the Individual Ready Reserve in the boatswain’s mate third class rating for the time equal to your 
time as a cadet. 
 
2.    You  failure  to  achieve  the  minimum  physical  fitness  standard  is  far  from  what  is  expected 
within our officer corps and within the Corps of Cadets as outlined in [Regulations for the Corps 
of Cadets, SUPTINST M5215.2 (series)]. 
 
3.  You have the right to appeal this action to my superior, Commandant (CG-1), within five (5) 
working days of the receipt of this letter. … 

 
 
On March 20, 2007, the applicant submitted a letter appealing his disenrollment based on 
“legitimate mitigating and extenuating circumstances as to why I have not passed the Physical 
Fitness Exam (PFE) as of yet.”  The applicant wrote the following: 
 

On  March  8,  2007,  the Superintendent  of  the  Academy  informed  the  applicant  that  he 

 
was being disenrolled from the Academy: 
 

2.  I recognize the fact that I have not passed the PFE but feel that it does not define me.  I have 
not abandoned the Core Values of the Coast Guard nor do I act in a way that is unbefitting of a 
Coast Guard Officer.  I have been the Drum Major for the Windjammers Drum and Bugle Corps 
for the past four seasons, starting in a leadership position  as a 4/c cadet.  I have also taken the 
Drum Major position for the Regimental Band and I even was awarded the “Best Overall Drum 
Major” at the Military School Band Festival where I acted in a professional manner and garnered 
positive  press  for  the  Coast  Guard  and  the  Academy.    In  addition  to  being  Regimental  Drum 
Major during the school year, I was also the Battalion Band Drum Major instructing new cadets 
during the Swab Summer training period.  I was not ordered to do so, but I undertook the respon-
sibilities on my own.  This was an extra duty in addition to the responsibilities I had as a Swab 
Summer squad leader.  I have also been able to maintain a C average since switching to the Gov-
ernment major and having overloaded semesters.  I received a silver star for being on the Com-
mandant of Cadet’s list for the spring of 2006 indicating a high level of military performance.  I 
have  also  been  mentoring  4/c  cadets  in  macro  economics  class  which  displays  more  leadership 
skills and I helped them achieve higher marks on exams and quizzes.  I am also a department head 
within my company, taking more leadership within the company while having an increased aca-
demic schedule. 
 
3.  Instead of being disenrolled from the USCGA, I ask for you to consider a few potential alter-
native  options.    First,  I  propose  that  the  deadline  for  passing  the  PFE  be  the  final  PFE  of  the 
semester, on 25 April 2007.  If I pass at that time then it would be like I had not been on disen-
rollment.    However,  if  I  fail,  I  would  be  considered  an  extended  opportunity  cadet.    This  is  an 
option that has been offered to cadets in years past.  Once the PFE was passed, I would receive my 
commission with the extended cadets and report to my unit, USCGC ACTIVE. 
 
 
Another option would be to allow me to receive my diploma and commission but remain 
attached to the USCGA.  I will forgo the thirty days of liberty and remain here for the summer as a 
Summer Ensign.  I would continue to train and upon completion of the PFE and the summer pro-
gram I would then report to my unit. 
 

A third option would be to let me reapply to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and repeat 
 
my current semester, either graduating with the extended opportunity cadets if the semester was 
repeated in the fall or with the class of 2008 if this semester was repeated in the spring. 
 
 
A last option would be to let me graduate with my diploma and not a commission.  I have 
earned those academic credits and ask to be able to graduate with them, as it is well past the mid-
term mark of my final semester. 
 
4.  [Superintendent and Commandant of Cadets], I also respectfully request an audience with you 
individually before this appeal is sent to the CG-1 level. 
 
5.  During 2/c summer [2005], I began to notice intense pain from my tailbone area with visually 
noticeable open sores.  I used conventional first aid type remedies but nothing worked.  Finally 
after the coastal sail training phase of the summer was over, I went to the Academy clinic to find 
out what the problem was, as it had not been getting better, only worse. 
 
 
At the clinic, I found out that I had a pilonidal cyst affecting the layers of my skin on my 
tailbone.  It was heavily infected and causing intense pain whenever I would sit or put any kind of 
pressure on the area.  I was  given a chit for limited duty, including instructions  not to take the 
PFE.  I was being treated with antibiotics to avoid having to go through surgery.  For weeks I was 
responding positively to the drugs but then the conditions worsened.  The sores were reappearing 
worse then ever and the antibiotics became ineffective.  This was early November [2005] and I 
had not yet taken the fall PFE.  The sores were so infected I had to be admitted to the Academy 
clinic for immediate surgery.  This surgery was to remove all infected material from the area to 
prepare for the actual surgery that would sew everything back together.  The immediate surgery 
was a success but I was not able to sit with any ease and I still could not put any pressure on the 
area.  I had not fully recovered at the onset of Winter Break. 
 
 
As soon as I returned from Winter Break, I was admitted to the hospital for surgery com-
pleted by [Dr. A], General Surgeon, [with] whom I had previous appointments charting the condi-
tion of the pilonidal cyst.  Recovery was slow from that surgery as I had to go to many follow-up 
appointments to cauterize the sutures and for continued maintenance.  Because of the surgery and 
the continuous appointments, I was still on limited duty, not to take the PFE, and I remained on 
intense prescription medications for the majority of the semester. 
 
 
However, the area did not heal right after the surgery and I was forced to go back into the 
hospital  for another  surgery.   This  was in March of 2006.  I had to continue routine follow  up 
appointments, and I was unable to take any of the spring semester PFEs because of these medical 
reasons.   I spent  the  majority of  the semester on limited duty and in the  issued running suit as 
opposed to the uniform, as I could not wear the uniform properly over the bandages.  I spent most 
of the time on Percocet and other pain killers to alleviate the pain of sitting or any kind of pressure 
on the area. 
 
 
I was only cleared by [Dr. A] to leave for my 1/c summer trip a couple of weeks before 
my departure.  I was told not to exert myself and not to start exercising until I was completely 
comfortable and could do so without any pain.  I reached this point about half way through my 1/c 
summer when I was on USCGC EAGLE.  I was on the USCGC RESOLUTE previously, but dur-
ing that time I still had pains while exercising and I was not comfortable putting myself in a situa-
tion where I would need that degree of medical attention that far away from the Academy and the 
surgeon  who  operated  on  me.    I  only  felt  comfortable  to  begin  exercising  while  aboard  the 
EAGLE.  This was in late July/early August of 2006.  I worked to get back to my previous level of 
fitness onboard and while I was home during summer leave.  However, this was not enough as I 
earned a 132 on the fall semester PFE. 
 
 
Since then I have been on Level II remediation and have improved my scores.  Coming 
back from this past winter leave, I achieved a score of 181 showing much improvement.  Scores 

since then have been around that with some lower, but I have not given up.  I have taken the fit-
ness  advice  from  [the  coach]  and  the  other  coaches  of  the  HPE  staff  and  completed  workouts 
issued from them and the Cadet Level II division led by [a 1/c cadet].  I have rarely missed the 
scheduled workouts and the only times I had were for legitimate reasons, such as a class field trip 
to Washington, D.C.  I have been faithful to the given nutritional advice and have lost over ten 
pounds this semester.  I have followed all the workouts and protocols.  I have stayed strong in my 
resolve and I have really made fitness a part of my lifestyle, not just something to maintain during 
my time at the Academy. 

 
 
Along with his appeal of the disenrollment, the applicant submitted several letters from 
faculty  members  who  supported  his  request  for  an  extension  of  the  deadline  to  pass  the  PFE 
based on the Coast Guard’s investment in his education and on his recent efforts, positive atti-
tude, good character, leadership in the band, commitment to the Coast Guard, and his extenuat-
ing circumstances of being FFLD for most of his 2/c year and of having to take six courses dur-
ing the spring 2007 term.  (The applicant had to take six classes during his final term in order to 
graduate because he had failed a class, Macroeconomic Principles, which was a requirement for 
his major, during the fall 2006 term.)  The applicant also submitted a letter from a first class 
cadet who served as the Level II PFE division officer during the 2006-2007 academic year.  This 
cadet stated that he had  seen the applicant “come to morning workouts,  fully exhaust himself 
taking the PFE, cheer others on, and maintain a determined and optimistic attitude.”  He stated 
that  the  applicant  “has  approached  the  PFE  as  a  process  and  continuously  strives  to  improve 
upon his performance.”  He described the applicant as a hard-working and friendly cadet with 
good “personal skills.”  He further noted, “When I watch cadets like [the applicant] run the PFE 
during retakes, I am truly inspired because I know the effort they put into preparing for every test 
because I am there to train with them, and I can feel how much they want to pass – want to be 
able to have numbers which testify to the work they have done. ... [The applicant’s] potential is 
not diminished by his PFE score, and there is still time for improvement, and for us to continue 
to support him in his pursuits.” 
 

In addition, the applicant submitted statements from medical personnel.  Dr. A wrote that 
the applicant “had a pilonidal cystectomy on January 9, 2006.  He failed to heal and had to have 
a repeat pilonidal cystectomy on April 3, 2006.  [He] had slow progress healing and was unable 
to do aggressive physical activity.  His healing progressed and he was not released until May 
[2006] to return to normal physical activity.”  A nurse at the clinic wrote about the applicant’s 
positive attitude and commitment to the Coast Guard.  A lieutenant who treated the applicant for 
the better part of a year, until the lieutenant’s transfer from the Academy in May 2006, wrote that 
the applicant 

 
had a pilonidal cyst which affected the area around the buttocks.  He had several severe infections 
which needed to be drained and subsequently needed surgery which I believe was done by [Dr. A] 
locally and L&M Hospital.  He recovered just prior to my departure and was put on fit for full 
duty status to start working out again.  In my experience, this problem can take 8 – 12 months to 
fully recover from to the point where a person can do sit-ups and run effectively.  While I was sta-
tioned at the Academy from June 2002 to May 2006, I had several cadets with this problem and it 
took most of them approximately 1 year to pass the PFE. … I would recommend that the Acad-
emy allow him more time to pass the PFE assuming this is the only issue.  I believe he had passed 
the PFE his first 2 years there and I know he should be able to pass it soon again.  I would still 
consider him fit to do virtually any job that an officer in the Coast Guard is expected to do upon 
graduation. 

 

1.    Forwarded,  recommending  denial  of  [the  applicant’s]  appeal.    I  have  considered  his  entire 
cadet record in making this recommendation.  Although [he] has made many noteworthy contri-
butions to the Coast Guard Academy during his tenure as a cadet, he is not physically qualified for 
commissioning. 
 
2.  Per [Regulations for the Corps of Cadets], letters of recommendation supporting retention of a 
cadet will only be accepted from Academy faculty, staff, or coaches.  Letters of recommendation 
from non-Academy civilians and cadets in support of other cadets being involuntarily disenrolled 
are not normally accepted and were not forwarded with [his] appeal. 
 
3.    Despite  being  given  repeated  opportunities  to  do  so,  in  the  four  years  [the  applicant]  has 
attended the Academy, he has never been able to fulfill the Academy’s physical fitness graduation 
requirement of passing the Physical Fitness Examination (PFE) with a score of 200, or the pre-Fall 
Semester 2006 standard of 325 points or more.  While his appeal and letters of recommendation 
from others place considerable emphasis on  his  medical condition during  his  second class [i.e., 
third or junior] year, they fail to mention that he never met the commissioning standard before his 
medical condition occurred, either. 
 
4.  The cadet regulations specifically state, “The commissioning/graduation standard for the PFE 
is 200 points on the January PFE of their first class [i.e., fourth or senior] year.  Failure to achieve 
this standard will result in a recommendation for disenrollment.  All cadets should strive for this 
standard throughout their cadet career.”  [The applicant’s] effort and performance on the PFE have 
consistently been less than stellar.  To date his PFE grades and scores are: 
 
 

 

 
Spring 2007 
Fall 2006 
Spring 2005 
Fall 2004 
Spring 2004  
Fall 2003 
Summer 2003 
 

Grade  Score 
D 
F 
D 
F 
D 
D 
F 

181 
132  [passing score changed to 2009] 
295  [passing score through this term was 325] 
248 
301 
290 
202 

The applicant’s appeal was forwarded to the Commandant through the Commandant of 
Cadets and the Superintendent of the Academy, both of whom recommended that the appeal be 
denied.  On April 2, 2007, the Superintendent forwarded the appeal to the Commandant with the 
following memorandum: 
 

Furthermore, [the applicant’s] PFE re-test on 20 March 2007 actually put him below the minimum 
4/c [freshman] standard of 155 points with a total score of 144 points.  On 28 March, he took the 
test again and received 169 points.  While an improvement, this is still below the required passing 
score of 200 as well as his spring score of 181. 
 
5.  Further, [the applicant] states that his medical condition from his second class year prohibited 
him  from  successfully completing the PFE during  his  first class  year.  [He] states that  his  final 
operation occurred in March 2006, and that he began exercising in late July/August of 2006.  That 
was eight months ago.  I feel he has had ample time to get himself physically conditioned to com-
plete the PFE at the class standard of 200 points. 
 

                                                 
9 The PFE scoring system changed between the spring 2005 and fall 2006 terms.  From the applicant’s matriculation 
in 2003 through spring 2005, the passing grade on the PFE for commissioning was 325 out of 500 possible points.  
Beginning in fall 2006, the test  was changed and the passing grade became 200 out of 300 possible points.  See 
footnote 4 above for further explanations of the different PFEs. 

6.  [The applicant] offers a number of options by which he should be allowed to graduate and/or 
granted additional time to pass the PFE requirements.  None of these are reasonable considering 
he has had four years to pass the PFE.  The resources by which [he] could overcome any deficien-
cies cited in his appeal have been available to him at the Academy, but he has never fully utilized 
them despite numerous substandard PFE scores. 
 
7.    Coast  Guard  officers  are  required  to  maintain  a  high  level  of  physical  fitness  in  order  to 
accomplish a myriad of tasks at their units.  As future leaders in our service, I expect cadets who 
graduate from the Coast Guard Academy to set a positive example for junior personnel when it 
comes to physical fitness.  [The applicant] has failed to uphold this standard. 
 
8.  [The applicant] is ranked 234 of 238 cadets in his class.  He had a 2.23 cumulative grade point 
average at the beginning of the spring 2007 academic semester.  He is a member of the Windjam-
mers Drum and Bugle Corps. 

On April 30, 2007, the applicant went to the Academy clinic and stated that he believed 
that his pilonidal cyst might be returning because he felt irritation in that area.  The doctor noted 
that the applicant was “preparing for his PFE … [which] will be tomorrow (a make-up PFE since 
he has not pass[ed] the [PFE]), not a limitation from the pilonidal scar irritation but his physical 
conditioning ability.”  The doctor noted that the applicant’s “feared medical condition [was] not 
demonstrated” and released him without limitations.  She advised the applicant that he could do 
sit-ups while sitting on a “doughnut.” 
 

On May 21, 2007, the Commandant deferred the applicant’s disenrollment and sent him 

the following notification: 
 

 

 

1.    After  careful  review  of  your  appeal,  the  Superintendent’s  recommendation,  and  your  entire 
record of performance, I am deferring my decision to act on your appeal. 
 
2.    You  will  be  retained  in  your  current  status  as  a  cadet  and  spend  a  portion  of  the  summer 
attached to the  Academy.  While assigned to the  Academy, you  will be assigned duties as pre-
scribed by the Commandant of Cadets.  However, you will be afforded not less than 2 hours/day to 
train physically and prepare yourself for passing the Physical Fitness Exam (PFE).  It will be your 
responsibility to  focus on the necessary physical fitness shortcomings  you need to overcome in 
order to pass the PFE. 
 
3.  You will be required to pass the PFE by 1 Aug.  If you pass the PFE by this date, you will 
graduate and be commissioned with a date of rank coinciding with the date that you pass the PFE.  
If you do not pass the PFE by 1 Aug., you will be disenrolled.  In the latter event, you will not be 
awarded either a commission or a degree.  There will be no subsequent extensions of this date. 

Also on May 21, 2007, the applicant began undergoing supervised physical training each 
day.  His record contains the work-out schedule given to him by a physical therapist at the Acad-
emy and his daily exercise logs for May 21 through July 31, 2007.  These logs show that the 
applicant took “practice” PFEs on May 31, June 7, June 21, and July 5 and five official PFEs on 
June 12, June 28, July 12, July 26, and July 31, but his scores on these PFEs are not shown.  The 
logs  also  show  that  beginning  on  June  4,  2007,  the  applicant  complained  of  lower  back  pain 
during his workouts every day. 

 
On July 10, 2007, a doctor noted that the applicant had been referred for an evaluation 
because of his inability to pass the PFE.  The doctor wrote that the applicant reported having 

“difficulty with sit-ups” and that a physical therapist had told him he might injure himself “due 
to excessive lordosis” in his lumbar spine.10  The doctor noted that the applicant “stands with 
increased lordosis of L-spine [lumbar spine]” but had a full range of motion in his back and hips, 
good strength, and no tenderness.  The doctor stated that the result of the physical examination 
was “normal” but recommended that the applicant receive “alternative PFE testing.”  The doctor 
ordered xrays. 

 
A radiology report dated July 10, 2007, states that the applicant had some levoscoliosis11 
but that the “degree of lumbar lordosis is unremarkable.  No spondylosis or spondylolisthesis is 
evident.”12  Contrarily, however, on July 17, 2007, a doctor  wrote in the record that the xray 
indicated that the applicant had acquired lordosis and “spondylolisthesis at several levels of L-
spine.”  Therefore, he ordered a CT scan of the applicant’s lumbar spine to investigate the “pro-
visional diagnosis” of “acquired deformity—spondylolisthesis.”  However, the CT scan, taken on 
July 25, 2007, revealed that the applicant had “mild left lumbar scoliosis”; “normal alignment 
without  subluxation”13;  “slight  bulging  of  the  L4  and  L5  discs”;  and  “[n]o  evidence  of  disc 
herniation or spinal stenosis.”14 

 
 
The  applicant’s  scores  on  his  PFE  retests  in  June  and  July  2007  are  not  in  the  record 
before the Board.  However, on August 2, 2007, the Superintendent sent the applicant notifica-
tion of his disenrollment from the Academy based on his failure to pass the PFE by August 1, 
2007.  The Superintendent noted that the applicant would not be awarded either a commission or 
a degree and that, instead, he would be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve as a BM3/E-
4 for four years.  The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty on August 9, 2007, 
due to “Unsuitability, Substandard Performance,” with a JHK separation code. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  21,  2008,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-

 
 
mended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 

                                                 
10 “Lordosis” is an abnormal increase in the curvature of the lumbar spine and is sometimes called “sway back” or 
“saddle back.”  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 29TH ED. (W. B. Saunders Co., 2000), p. 1027. 
11 “Scoliosis” is a “lateral deviation in the normally straight vertical line of the spine.”  The prefix “levo-“ means “to 
the left.” Id. at 987, 1612. 
12  “Spondylolisthesis”  is  the  “forward  displacement  (olisthy)  of  one  vertebra  over  another,  usually  of  the  fifth 
lumbar over the body of the sacrum, or of the fourth lumbar over the fifth, usually due to a developmental defect in 
the pars interarticularis,” which is a “part of the lamina between the superior and inferior articular processes of a 
lumbar vertebra.”  Id. at 1328, 1684.  Spondylolisthesis is normally a congenital condition, but it may be caused by a 
fracture or bone disease, and it  may be asymptomatic or cause back pain.  Id.; Braunwald, E., et al., eds., HAR-
RISON’S PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 15th ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2001), p. 82. 
13 “Subluxation” means “incomplete or partial dislocation.”  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 29TH 
ED. (W. B. Saunders Co., 2000), p. 1719. 
14 “Spinal stenosis” is a “narrowing of the vertebral canal, nerve root canals, or intervertebral foramina of the lumbar 
spine caused by encroachment of bone upon the space.”  Id. at 1698. 

 
The JAG noted that throughout his years at the Academy, the applicant’s performance on 
the  PFE  was  “marginal  to  substandard.”    He  argued  that  “the  only  question  presented  here  is 
whether the Superintendent of the CGA [Coast Guard Academy] abused his discretion by finding 
the  applicant  unsuitable  for  service  as  demonstrated  by  his  failure  to  pass  the  commissioning 
standard on the physical fitness exam (PFE).” 
 
 
The JAG stated that under section 1-1-02 of the Regulations for the Corps of Cadets, the 
administration of the Academy “is vested in the Superintendent, who is directly responsible to 
the Commandant for its operation and the accomplishment of its mission.”  Section 1-1-03 of the 
regulations states that the mission of the Academy is “[t]o graduate young men and women with 
sound bodies, stout hears, and alert minds … and strong in resolve to be worthy of the traditions 
of commissioned officers in the United States Coast Guard in the service of their country and 
humanity.”  Under section 1-2-01 of the regulations, the Superintendent is responsible for the 
education and training of cadets, the accomplishment of the mission of the Academy, and the 
promulgation of regulations to that end.  In addition, under section 2-4-01, the Superintendent 
has the authority to terminate the appointment of a cadet, and section 2-4-02 states that a cadet 
may be disenrolled for “unsuitability” if they fail to maintain or meet physical fitness standards.  
Section 3-2-01.b.1.(g) of the regulations states that a cadet may not receive a degree or graduate 
without successfully meeting the physical fitness standards. 
 
 
The JAG argued that “the CGA Superintendent exercised his authority as prescribed by 
CG policy and regulations to disenroll the applicant … based on the applicant’s inability to suc-
cessfully complete the PFE.  The applicant displayed a continuous pattern of substandard per-
formance with regard to his fitness requirements.  The applicant was afforded ample time for 
recovery and remedial retest and physical rehabilitation [in accordance with] 3-4-02.c.” of the 
Regulations  for  the  Corps  of  Cadets.    Citing  Quinton  v.  United  States,  64  Fed.  Cl.  118,  124 
(2005),  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir.  1992);  and  Sanders  v.  United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), the JAG argued that the applicant “has not provided any 
evidence in support of a showing that the CGA Superintendent abused his discretion or did not 
carry out his duties ‘correctly, lawfully and in good faith.’”  In addition, citing United States v. 
McCrackin, 736 F. Supp. 107, 112 (D.S.C. 1990), and Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983), 
the JAG argued that the Coast Guard is entitled to “considerable deference” on such a “uniquely 
military matter.” 
 
 
The JAG argued that the applicant’s “failure to successfully pass the PFE commissioning 
standards after numerous opportunities precludes him from meeting the CGA standards for com-
missioning, graduation, and conferral of the CGA Bachelor of Science degree.”  The JAG stated 
that the CGA “is not in the business of providing disenrolled cadets (for whatever reason) with a 
four-year degree without fulfilling all requirements as prescribed by CG & CGA policy.  At the 
time the applicant was given an additional extension to successfully complete his PFE require-
ment, over a year had passed from his initial medical procedures and he was fit for full duty.”  
The JAG stated that if the Board were to grant the applicant a degree, “he would be awarded a 
degree free of charge without the obligated commission service as an officer in the CG.  That 
would clearly run contrary to CG policy and would not be in the best interest of the CG in the 
future.  …  Thus,  sustaining  the  applicant’s  request  would  result  in  a  precedent  contrary  to 

CGA/CG policy and could present a negative effect/divergence with regard to CGA protocol.”  
Therefore, the JAG concluded, no change should be made to the applicant’s record. 
 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that the applicant “was 
provided remedial assistance  with regards to meeting the PFE standards and despite the  addi-
tional  coaching  and  time,  the  applicant  did  not  meet  this  integral  graduation/commissioning 
requirement.”  CGPC stated that although the applicant claims that his medical condition pre-
cluded him from successfully completing the PFE, he was medically cleared for participation in 
the PFE.  CGPC further noted that the applicant had a “significant history of marginal and sub-
standard  performance  on  the  PFEs”  both  before  and  after  the  treatment  of  his  pilonidal  cyst.  
CGPC concluded that because the requirements for a degree from the Academy and a commis-
sion are clear, “any favorable determination in this case by the BCMR should be subject to DHS 
General Counsel review as it would represent a significant divergence from standard application 
of Coast Guard policy with regard to cadets meeting degree requirements.” 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 12, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Section 2-4-01 of the Regulations for the Corps of Cadets, which were provided to the 
Board by CGPC, states that the Superintendent of the Academy may disenroll and discharge a 
cadet upon the recommendation of various officials, including the Director of Health and Physi-
cal  Education.    Section  2-4-02  states  that  a  cadet  may  be  recommended  for  disenrollment  for 
failure to maintain standards in academics, medical fitness, physical fitness, swimming ability, or 
suitability for service.  Section 2-4-04 lists specific reasons for disenrollment, including miscon-
duct,  poor  performance,  repeated  low  MPI  scores,  obesity,  poor  physical  fitness,  inability  to 
swim, etc. 

 
Section 3-4-01.a.1. of the regulations states that “[a]s future officers, cadets must learn to 
develop habits that contribute to life long fitness and maintain the physical capacity to safely per-
form a wide variety of physical activities associated with serving in the Coast Guard.  In order to 
assure that the fitness and swimming performance standards are met and retained by all cadets, 
physical performance evaluations are administered on a regular basis.” 
 

Section 3-4-02.b.1. states that “[t]he commissioning/graduation standard for the PFE is 
200 points.  First class cadets must achieve this standard on both examinations of their first class 
year, but all cadets should strive for this standard on each PFE of their cadet career.”   

 
Section 3-4-02.b.2. states that “[f]irst class cadets who fail to meet the 200 point standard 
on the August or January test of their first class year will be interviewed by the Head, Depart-
ment of HPE within one week of the notification of the failure.  If no extenuating circumstances 
exist to account for the exam failure, these cadets will receive a letter in their file and be recom-

mended for suspended disenrollment status, Fitness Probation, and enrolled in Level II Remedial 
Physical Training  (RPT).  These cadets will be  retested no later than the midterm date of the 
semester in which they failed the test.  Cadets who fail the retest will be recommended for disen-
rollment.”  Section 3-4-02.c. states the following: 
 

2.  Cadets just released from a medical status will be allowed a specific period of time for physical 
rehabilitation.    The  cadet’s  physician  and  the  Head  Athletic  Trainer  will  determine  the  specific 
length of time for rehabilitation. 
 
3.  Cadets unable to complete the PFE due to medical reasons for two consecutive semesters will 
be recommended by the Head, Department of Health and Physical Education for a thorough medi-
cal  review.    The  Senior  Medical  Officer  will  forward  the  report  of  medical  examination  to  the 
Director of Athletics, retaining a copy for the cadet’s health record, with one of the following rec-
ommendations:    (1)  medical  treatment  to  correct  any  medical  condition,  (2)  convene  a  Medical 
Review  Board,  or  (3)  a  fit  for  full  duty  determination.  A  medical  officer  may  recommend  that 
cadets who are in long-term medical recovery participate in the examination on a specific limited 
basis.  Approved alternative examinations may be substituted for specific items the cadet is unable 
to perform during that limited period. 

 
1.  The following are required for the degree of Bachelor of Science and a commission: 
(a)  Pass or validate every course in the core curriculum. 
(b)  Pass at least 37 courses of 3.00 credits or greater. 
(c)  Complete the academic requirements for one of the majors as specified in the official Catalog 
of Courses. 
(d)  Attain  an  average  of  at  least  a  2.00  in  all  required  upper  division  courses  in  the  major,  as 
specified in the official Catalog of Courses.  This average includes Fs earned and the grades when 
courses are retaken. … 
(e)  Attain a Cumulative Grade Point Average of at least 2.00. 
(f)  Be in residence at the Academy for at least four academic years. 
(g)  Complete  successfully  all  required  portions  of  the  physical  education  program  including 
meeting minimum swimming and physical fitness standards. 

 

Section 3-4-04.a.2. states that cadets in need of remedial physical training will be referred 
“for medical examination to determine if a physical or psychological medical condition exists 
which restricts ability to pass the PFE or swimming examinations.” 

 
Section  2-4-06  contains  the  procedures  by  which  a  cadet  may  appeal  disenrollment.  
Cadets may submit letters describing any extenuating or mitigating circumstances for their defi-
ciency and may seek letters of recommendation from faculty, staff, coaches, and, if permitted by 
the  Superintendent,  fellow  cadets.    Section  2-4-07  states  that  the  Commandant  will  take  final 
action on a recommendation for disenrollment. 
 
 
Section 2-6-03.b.2. states that when a first or second class cadet’s appointment is termi-
nated either voluntarily or involuntarily and the cadet has no prior military obligation, the cadet 
“will be transferred to the ‘Individual Ready Reserve (RJ)’ in the rating of Boatswain’s Mate 
third  class  (Seaman,  if  disenrolled  for  Suitability  for  Service  reasons),  for  a  period  of  service 
equal to their service as a cadet.” 
 
 
bachelor’s degree from the Academy: 

Section 3-2-01.b. states that the following are requirements for graduating and receiving a 

(h)  Meet  all  military  performance  standards,  demonstrating  all  aspects  of  personal  and  profes-
sional  development  necessary  to  serve  as  Ensigns  in  the  United  States  Coast  Guard,  unless  a 
commission will not be offered due to a medical disqualification. 
(i)  International cadets …  
2.  The Superintendent confers the degree of Bachelor of Science on those cadets in good standing 
who have met these requirements or revisions published since matriculation. 

 

Section 3-6-01.a. states that under 10 U.S.C. § 1217, a cadet who acquires a physical dis-
ability may be processed for a medical discharge or retirement in accordance with the rules for 
active duty members under 10 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq., and that former cadets may apply to the 
Department  of  Veterans’  Affairs  for  disability  benefits.    Sections  3-6-01.b.  and  c.  state  that 
cadets who fail to meet the medical standards for commissioning under the Coast Guard Medical 
Manual shall be processed under the Physical Disability Evaluation System. 
 

Chapter 3.E.2. of the Coast Guard Medical Manual states that the “preappointment physi-
cal examination of cadets in the graduating class should be held at least 6 months prior to accep-
tance of the commission.  This physical examination should be conducted to determine physical 
fitness  for  commission  in  the  Regular  Service  (section  3-D  and  3-E)  with  recommendations 
made  accordingly.    Cadets  should  not  be  summarily  disqualified  for  commissioning  merely 
because they do not meet the standards for appointment as cadets provided that they may reason-
ably be expected to be physically capable of completing a full and effective Coast Guard career. 
In general, relatively minor defects that would be disqualifying for original commission direct 
from civilian life are not disqualifying for commission of a cadet in whom the Government has a 
considerable investment.” 

 
Chapter 3.D.2.a.(2)(f) of the Medical Manual states that the medical standards in Chapter 
3.D. apply to “[c]adets at the United States Coast Guard Academy, except for such conditions 
that  have  been  diagnosed  since  entrance  into  the  Academy.    With  respect  to  such  conditions, 
upon recommendation of the senior medical officer, USCGA, the fitness standards of section 3-F 
are applicable for retention in the Academy.” 

 
Chapter 3.D.33.d.(2) of the Medical Manual states that a candidate for appointment as an 
officer may not be appointed if they have a pilonidal cyst or if they have had a pilonidal cyst 
excised within the past six months.  Chapter 3.E. of the manual does not mention pilonidal cysts.  
Chapter  3.D.34.c.(4)  states  that  a  candidate  may  be  disqualified  for  appointment  if  “[t]here  is 
lumbar scoliosis greater than 20 degrees, thoracic scoliosis over 20 degrees, and kyphosis or lor-
dosis greater than 55 degrees when measured by the Cobb method.”  Chapter 3.F.13.e. states that 
a member may be disqualified for retention if they have scoliosis with “[s]evere deformity with 
over two inches of deviation of tips of spinous processes from the midline.”  Chapter 3.D.34.i. 
states  that  spondylolisthesis  may  be  a  disqualifying  condition  for  appointment  as  an  officer.  
Chapter 3.F.13.e.(2) states that spondylolisthesis is a congenital condition that may be disquali-
fying for retention if there are “more than mild symptoms resulting in repeated hospitalization or 
significant assignment limitation.” 
 

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 application is timely because it was filed within three years of the applicant’s discovery of 
the alleged error or injustice in his record, as required under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).   
 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case with-
out a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.15   

2. 

 
3. 

4. 

The applicant alleged that he was unjustly denied a bachelor’s degree and an offi-
cer’s commission upon his completion of his fourth year at the Academy.  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.16  Absent 
evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials “have carried out their 
duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”17  
 
 
Regarding  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  officer’s  commission,  the  Board  finds 
that he has failed to prove that the Commandant and the Superintendent of the Academy abused 
their discretion in refusing to offer him a commission.  A high degree of physical fitness is an 
essential requirement for the receipt of a commission, and under sections 1-2-01 and 2-4-01 of 
the Regulations for the Corps of Cadets, the Superintendent is responsible for determining the 
fitness standards for commissioning and for disenrolling cadets who fail to meet those standards.  
Under section 3-4-02, the Superintendent has made passing the PFE and  a swimming test the 
physical fitness standard for receipt of a commission, and the applicant has not shown that he 
ever received a passing score on the PFE.  Section 3-2-01.b. of the regulations states that meeting 
the physical fitness standard is an essential requirement for a commission.  The Board finds that 
the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  erroneously  or 
unfairly denied an officer’s commission when he could not pass the PFE. 
 

The applicant argued that he should have been awarded a bachelor’s degree from 
the Academy because he successfully completed all requirements for the degree except for pass-
ing the PFE.  Furthermore, he alleged, he was unable to pass the PFE because of “acquired sco-
liosis” that he developed because he was not given appropriate care and physical therapy fol-
                                                 
15 See Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 754, 764 (1974) (stating that a hearing is not required because BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
16 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)).   
17 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

5. 

lowing the excision of his pilonidal cyst.  However, under sections 3-2-01.b. and 3-4-02 of the 
Regulations for the Corps of Cadets, passing the PFE is an essential requirement for receiving a 
bachelor’s  degree  and  graduating  from  the  Academy,  and  although  the  content  of  the  PFE 
changed during the applicant’s years at the Academy, sit-ups were always part of the test.  The 
CT  scan  taken  on July  25,  2007,  revealed  that  the  applicant’s  actual  diagnosis  was  “mild  left 
lumbar scoliosis” and “slight bulging of the L4 and L5 discs.”  Otherwise his spine had normal 
alignment with no dislocation, disc herniation, or spinal stenosis.  There is no basis in the record 
for concluding that the applicant was not afforded proper medical care and advice following the 
excision of the pilonidal cyst, as he alleged, or that his mild scoliosis and slightly bulging L4 and 
L5 discs are attributable to either the cyst or his post-excision aftercare.  Moreover, the record 
shows that the applicant, like all cadets who perform poorly on the PFE, was continually encour-
aged, warned, and provided remedial fitness training to maximize his physical fitness, but did not 
do so. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  receive  his  degree  because  only  his  back 
condition prevented him from passing the PFE.  The applicant’s medical records indicate that he 
was FFD and able to train for the PFE throughout his first (4/c), second (3/c), and fourth (1/c) 
years at the Academy.  During his third (2/c) year, he was FFLD in that he was unable to do sit-
ups  or  run  for  most  of  the  time  from  August  2005  through  May  2006.    The  applicant’s  PFE 
scores  during  his  final  year  were  as  follows:    August  2006:  132;  October  2006:  165; January 
2007: 181; March 20, 2007: 144; and March 28, 2007: 169.  The Commandant gave the appli-
cant an extended opportunity to pass the PFE in the summer of 2007, but his training log indi-
cates  that,  beginning  on  June  4,  2007,  the  applicant  complained  that  he  could  not  do  sit-ups 
without suffering from lower back pain.  The applicant did not submit and his cadet records do 
not contain the results of his PFEs in June and July 2007.  However, based on his complaints of 
back pain and the xray and CT scan showing that he has mild scoliosis and slightly bulging L4 
and L5 discs, the applicant asks the Board to find that the Superintendent erred in refusing to 
award him a degree when he could not pass the PFE. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

The Board finds that the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove 
that the Superintendent committed error or injustice or abused his discretion in refusing to award 
the applicant a degree from the Academy.  While the medical records show that the applicant had 
mild scoliosis and slightly bulging L4 and L5 discs and one doctor suggested alternative PFE 
testing, the Superintendent had access to all of his records, including presumably his June and 
July 2007 PFE testing, as well as to the applicant’s doctors and coaches when he made the deci-
sion to disenroll the applicant without awarding him a bachelor’s degree.  The Board is not per-
suaded  that  the  Superintendent  erred  or  committed  injustice  in  finding  that  the  applicant  had 
failed to earn a degree from the Academy.  In light of all the records, the applicant’s disenroll-
ment cannot be considered “treatment by the military authorities that shocks the sense of jus-
tice.”18  The Board notes in this regard that the applicant’s education and training at the Acad-
emy were provided free of charge, and he can likely transfer many of his academic credits to 
another institution. 

                                                 
18 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (holding that, for the purposes of the BCMRs, “‘[i]njustice’, 
when not also ‘error’, is treatment by the military authorities, that shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically 
illegal”).  

The applicant alleged that upon his disenrollment, he should have been released to 
the IRR as a BM2, rather than a BM3.  He included in his application a quotation of section 2-6-
03 of the Regulations for the Corps of Cadets which indicates that disenrolled 1/c cadets should 
receive the BM2 rating, while disenrolled 2/c cadets receive the BM3 rating.  The Statement of 
Acceptance and Obligation that the applicant signed upon his admission to the Academy in 2003 
states that if disenrolled as a 1/c or 2/c cadet he would “be transferred to the United States Coast 
Guard Reserve in an appropriate enlisted grade or rating in an inactive status.”  The Coast Guard 
submitted an undated copy of the Regulations for the Corps of Cadets and in this version, section 
2-6-03 states that both 1/c and 2/c cadets are released to the IRR as BM3s when disenrolled from 
the Academy.  Therefore, it appears to the Board that the Superintendent acted in  accordance 
with this latter version of the regulations.  In the absence of any evidence that the applicant’s 
version of the regulations was controlling in 2007, the Board must presume that the Superinten-
dent complied with the regulation actually in effect at the time of the applicant’s disenrollment.19 

 
8. 

 
9. 

Accordingly, the application should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 

 

                                                 
19 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); Arens, 969 F.2d at 1037; Sanders, 594 F.2d at 813. 

The application of former cadet 1/c xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG Academy, for 

ORDER 

 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 Ryan J. Wedlund 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

correction of his military record is denied.