DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-044 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxx, CDR (Ret.)  
   

 

 
 

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 
application  on  January  5,  2005,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application 
and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  22,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked that his military record be corrected to "(1) indicate his total 
time in service as no less than 20 years and 9 days; (2) reflect his statutory retirement no 
earlier  than  March  2,  1973;  (3)  designate  his  schizophrenia  and  diabetes  as  combat-
related; and (4) designate [the applicant] as eligible for CRSC [Combat-Related Special 
Compensation]." 1 

                                                 
1  Section 1413a. (Combat-Related Special Compensation)  of title 10 of the United States Code provides 
for the following: 
(a) Authority.  The Secretary concerned shall pay each eligible combat-related uniformed services retiree 
who elects benefits under this section a monthly amount for the combat-related disability of the retiree 
determined under subsection (b). 
(b) Amount.  (1) Determination of month amount.  Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the monthly amount 
to  be  paid  an  eligible  combat-related  disabled  uniformed  services  retiree  under  subsection  (a)  for  any 
month  is  the  amount  of  compensation  to  which  the  retiree  is  entitled  under  title  38  for  that  month, 
determined without regard to any disability for the retiree that is not a combat-related disability.   

 
 
On  December  23,  1972,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  the  temporary  disability 
retirement list with a 70 percent disability rating for "Schizophrenic Reaction, Paranoid 
Type:  Severe Impairment of Social and Industrial Adaptability."   At that time he was 2 
months and 9 days shy of having 20 years of active duty, which would have made him 
eligible for a retirement by reason having served 20 years on active duty.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant presented the following three issues for the Board's consideration: 

 
 

1.    The  Coast  Guard  improperly  deprived  the  applicant  of  his  statutory 

retirement when it medically retired him on December 23, 1972.   
 

2.  The applicant incurred his disability in the Armed Conflict of Vietnam.   

 

 

3.  The applicant is entitled to combat-related special compensation. 

Issue  one  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  contention  between  the  parties.    The  Coast 
Guard  in  the  advisory  opinion  (discussed  below)  admitted  error  in  this  regard  and 
recommended that the applicant's record be corrected to show that that he was placed 

                                                                                                                                                             
(2) Maximum amount.  The amount paid to an eligible combat-related disabled uniformed services retiree 
for  any  month  under  paragraph  (1)  may  not  exceed  the  mount  of  the  reduction  in  retired  pay  that  is 
applicable to the retiree for that month under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.   
(3)  Special  Rules  for  Chapter  61  disability  retirees.    In  the  case  of  an  eligible  combat-related  disabled 
uniform service retiree who is retired under chapter 61 of this title [10 USCS §§ 1201 et seq.], the amount 
of  payment  under  paragraph  (1)  for  any  month  shall  be  reduced  by  the  amount  (if  any)  by  which  the 
amount of the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title . . . exceeds the amount of retired pay to 
which the member would have been entitled under any other provision of law based upon the member's 
service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title . . .   
(c)  Eligible  retirees.    For  purposes  of  this  section,  an  eligible  combat-related  disabled  uniform  services 
retiree referred to in subsection (a) is a member of the uniformed services entitled to retired pay who--(1) 
has  completed  at  least  20  years  of  service  in  the  uniformed  services  that  are  creditable  for  purposes  of 
computing  the  amount  of  retied  pay  to  which  a  member  is  entitled  to  is  entitled  to  retired  pay  under 
section 12731 of this title . . . (other than by reason of section 12731b of this title . . .  (2) has a combat-
related disability.   
(d) Procedures.  The secretary of Defense shall prescribe procedures and criteria under which a disabled 
uniformed services retiree may apply to the Secretary of a military department to be considered to be an 
eligible combat-related uniform services retiree.  Such procedures shall apply uniformly through out the 
Department of Defense. 
 
 
 

on the TDRL on March 5, 1973, and that he retired with 20 years 00 months and 00 days 
of active duty service. 
 

Issues  two  and  three  are  related  in  that  the  applicant  seeks  CRSC  for 
schizophrenia  and  diabetes. 
  According  to  the  applicant,  the  FY  2003  DoD 
Authorization Act made CRSC available to retirees with 20 years of service and who are 
rated  at  least  60%  disabled  "because  of  armed  conflict,  hazardous  duty,  training 
exercises,  or  mishap  compensation."    (This  law  has  since  been  revised  to  make  CRSC 
available  to  most  20-year  retirees  who  are  receiving  compensation  from  the  DVA  for 
disabilities that are either Purple Heart or combat- related and rated to be at least 10% 
disabling.)   
 

The applicant argues that his schizophrenia and diabetes are combat-related.  In 
this  regard,  he  argued  that  his  schizophrenia  developed  during  his  command  tour  in 
Vietnam.    He  further  argued  that  "[w]hether  his  schizophrenia  was  triggered  by  the 
chemical sprayed on Con Son just months  before its onset . . . or the pressures of his 
command  .  .  .  that  his  20-day  hospitalization  for  'schizophrenic  reaction  chronic'  was 
caused by his war time duty in Vietnam." 
 

With respect to his diabetes, the applicant argued that it is also combat related.  
He stated that the 2000 DVA rating decision recognized that his diabetes was service-
connected  because  of  his  Vietnam  combat-service  and  the  presumption  that  Type  II 
diabetes is caused by herbicide exposure during service in Vietnam.  He stated that he 
was first diagnosed with "diabetes on glucose tol[erance] tests" shortly after he returned 
from  Vietnam.    He  further  stated  that  even  though  the  Coast  Guard  and  the  DVA 
ignored  his  diabetes  for  almost  30  years,  his  diabetes-related  disability  was  clearly 
caused by his wartime service in Vietnam.   
 
 
The applicant argued that he is entitled to CRSC because he has shown that his 
schizophrenia  is  combat  related  and  is  70%  disabling.    He  further  argued  that  his 
diabetes II, which the DVA has rated as 20% disabling, is also combat-related, and when 
taken  together  with  the  70%  disability  rating  for  schizophrenia,  he  has  a  90%  armed-
conflict-related disability.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY RECORD2 

 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Massachusetts  National  Guard  on  February  14, 
1949,  and  served  in  that  organization  for  1  month  and  27  days.    The  applicant  was 
honorably  discharged  from  the  National  Guard  on  April  10,  1949,  so  that  he  could 

 

                                                 
2      The  Board  developed  this  portion  of  the  decision  from  the  applicant's  statement  of  facts  and 
supplemented it as necessary from the military record. 

immediately  enlist  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  three  years  under  a  special  temporary 
enlistment.   
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  April  11,  1949,  and  served  for  1 
 
year  and  27  days.    He  was  honorably  discharged  from  this  enlistment  to  enroll  as  a 
cadet  at  the  Coast  Guard  Academy.    After  four  years  at  the  Academy,  he  was 
commissioned  as  an  ensign.    The  applicant  stated  that  in  1954,  the  Coast  Guard 
calculated his total active service, including his prior active National Guard service to 
be 1 year, 10 months, and 7 days. However, a letter dated November 24, 1959, from the 
Commandant to the applicant about the date on which the applicant would be eligible 
for a 30-year retirement stated, "Massachusetts National Guard is not creditable service 
in as much as there is no record of being called into Federal service during that period 
of your service." 
 
 
After  being  commissioned  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  was 
regularly promoted reaching the rank of commander (CDR) in 1967.  Earlier on August 
20,  1966,  during  the  Vietnam  War,  the  applicant  reported  as  the  first  commanding 
officer (CO) of LORAN Transmitting Station, Con Son Island, Vietnam.  The applicant 
stated that during this tour, the 44th Medical Brigade, U.S. Army, "conducted a Malaria 
Spray  Evaluation  Program  on  Con  Son  Island."    He  stated  that  in  April  1967  four 
months  after  the  spray  was  completed,  he  was  admitted  to  the  hospital  for  29  days, 
where he was diagnosed as suffering from "schizophrenic reaction chronic."   He stated 
that the physicians noted that his illness arose in the line of duty  due to the stress of 
commanding an isolated unit in Vietnam.  He further stated that his rating chain stated 
in  an  OER  covering  the  pertinent  period  that  "[the  applicant]  suffered  a  borderline 
breakdown" which was due to "mental exhaustion" because the applicant " who takes 
himself  and  his  job  very  seriously,  had  been  through  a  very  trying  period;  building 
organizing and operating his station in a war zone."  [Emphasis in original.] 
 
 
In September 1967, the applicant reported to Coast Guard Headquarters for duty 
and in December 1967 he was promoted to Commander (CDR).  The applicant stated 
that he exhibited above average performance until 1969 when his performance began to 
decline.  In 1971, his reporting officer wrote the following comments in the applicant's 
fitness report: 
 

His immediate supervisor, a civilian, reported constant difficulty  getting 
[the applicant's] cooperation.  I took several opportunities to explore this 
matter  personally,  and  had  the  same  experience.    Efforts  to  convey 
direction  verbally  were  rarely  effective.    Efforts  to  elicit  reasons  for  not 
following  direction  recommended  typically  resulted  in  either  long 
discussions  about  "other  factors"  which  it  turned  out  had  no  immediate 
bearing,  or  in  the  discovery  that  [the  applicant]  thought  "someone  "  else, 
another  element  or  organization  should  do  that,  not  he  or  his  organization.    In 

other words, to get him to do a job (other than the few he wanted to do), 
was  just  not  possible  unless  detailed  instructions  were  furnished  in 
writing or a direct order was delivered with witnesses present.   

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  1970  he  was  diagnosed  with  diabetes,  which  was 
treated by diet.  He stated that in 1971 he had 17 years, 11 months of creditable Coast 
Guard service and 1 month and 27 days of National Guard service.   
 
 
In June 1971, the applicant was assigned to  duty as CO of a  cutter, which was 
decommissioned in January 20, 1972.  He stated that in March two crewmembers of the 
cutter  accused  the  applicant  of  making  homosexual  advances  toward  them.    In 
response,  the  Commandant  directed  the  applicant  to  show  cause  for  retention  due  to 
moral dereliction before a Board of Inquiry (BI).   
 

Prior  to  considering  the  applicant's  case,  the  BI  directed  that  the  applicant 
undergo a psychiatric evaluation.  The psychiatrist reported that the applicant did not 
suffer from any mental disease or defect.  The BI was not satisfied with this evaluation 
and ordered the applicant to undergo a second psychiatric evaluation.   
 

The applicant underwent a second psychiatric evaluation and on September 18, 
1972,  the  psychiatrist  issued  a  report  stating  that  the  applicant  suffered  from  
"Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type."  On September 25, 1972, a Medical Board (MB) found 
that the applicant suffered from "Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type" and recommended that 
the applicant appear before a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) (known as the Central 
PEB).   The applicant acknowledged the findings of the MB on September 25, 1972.     

 
On  October  24,  1972,  a  PEB  (Physical  Evaluation  Board)3  found  him  unfit  for 
duty  and  recommended  his  placement  on  the  temporary  Disability  Retirement  List 
(TDRL)  with  a  70%  disability  rating.    A  copy  of  the  PEB  in  the  applicant's  military 
record provided the following explanatory note:  " Final action will be taken on this case 
after  completion  of  20  years  service."      On  the  same  date  as  the  PEB  report,  the 
Commandant  in  a  letter  to  the  Commander,  Third  Coast  Guard  District  and  to  the 
applicant stated in paragraph 5. that final action on the case would be taken after the 
applicant completed 20 years of active service.  Diabetes in not mentioned in the PEB 
report.   
 

                                                 
3   The Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) consist of several boards, namely, the medical board, 
the  central  physical  evaluation  board  (CPEB),  the  Formal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB),  and  the 
Physical  Review  Counsel  (PRC).    The  PEB  board  mentioned  here  refers  to  the  CPEB,  which  Board  is  a 
permanently  established  administrative  body  convened  to  evaluated  on  a  records  basis  the  fitness  for 
duty  of  active  and  reserve  members  and  the  fitness  for  duty  of  members  on  the  temporary  disability 
retired  list.    See  Chapter  4.A.1.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System  Manual  (COMDTINST 
M1850.2C). 

The military record shows that the applicant received the PEB on November 9, 
1972 and accepted the findings of the PEB4 and waived his right to a formal PEB (FPEB) 
hearing on November 10, 1972.  The Commandant approved the PEB recommendation 
placing the applicant on the TDRL, effective December 23, 1972.  The applicant stated 
that at the time of his placement on the TDRL, the Coast Guard calculated that he had 
19 years, 9 months, and 22 days of active service.  He also stated that he had 60 days of 
accrued  leave,  which  he  sold  back  to  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  denied  that  he 
voluntarily elected to sell back leave, but rather he was directed to sign papers stating 
that he had elected to sell leave.   

  
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  June  1973,  he  was  admitted  to  a  Veterans 
Administration  [now  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)]  hospital.    The  staff 
physician  there  determined  that  his  condition  was  "consistent  with  an  acute 
schizophrenic  reaction-paranoid  type." 
  He  was  treated  with  medication  and 
discharged.    He  stated  that  in  November  1973,  the  VA  rated  his  disability  as  70% 
disabling.   
 
 
In  March  1977,  approximately  five  years  after  being  placed  on  the  TDRL,  the 
CPEB  reviewed  the  applicant's  case  and  reaffirmed  the  diagnosis  of  "schizophrenia, 
paranoid  type  -  severe  impairment  of  social  and  industrial  adaptability"  as  70% 
disabling.    The  CPEB  recommended  the  applicant's  permanent  retirement.    The 
Commandant  approved 
the  applicant  was 
permanently retired due to schizophrenia with a 70% disability rating.  The CPEB did 
not mention diabetes.  
 
 
The applicant stated that the Department of Veterans Affairs evaluated him on 
September 29, 1999.  At that time, the DVA maintained the 70% disability rating but also 
found that the applicant suffered a hearing loss, which it rated as 40% disabling for a 
combined disability rating of 80%.  The DVA evaluation did not include any disability 
rating for diabetes.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  DVA  adjudged  him  20%  disabled  due  to  Type  II 
diabetes  for  the  first  time  on  February  6,  2002.    The  DVA  also  noted  that  his 
hypertension and chronic renal insufficiency were also service-connected.   
 

the  CPEB's  recommendation  and 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

                                                 
4      The  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  the  PEB  taken  from  his  DVA  file,  a  copy  of  which  is  also  in  the 
military  record,  showing  that  he  accepted  the  PEB  findings  on  December  10,  1972.    There  is  no 
explanation  for  why  this  date  for  the  applicant's  acceptance  of  the  PEB  findings  is  different  from  the 
November 10, 1972 date of acceptance or why the explanatory note was not included on this later PEB 
report.   

On May 23, 2005, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an 
 
advisory  opinion. 
  He  noted  that  the  applicant's  request  was  untimely  but 
recommended that the Board consider it and grant the partial relief recommended by 
Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) in a memorandum attached as 
Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.   
 

 CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  partial  relief  by  correcting  the 
applicant's record to show that on March 5, 1973 (instead of December 23, 1972), he was 
placed  on  the  TDRL  with  20  years  of  active  service.    On  the  issue  of  CRSC,  he 
recommended  that  the  applicant  apply  to  the  appropriate  Coast  Guard  office  for  a 
decision on his entitlement to CRSC once his record is corrected.   
 
 
CGPC stated that retiring the applicant on December 22, 1972, was not the most 
appropriate decision and may have been in error.  He noted that the applicant's CPEB 
contains several key contradictions, as follows: 
 

a.  On October 24, 1972, the CPEB stated that final action on the applicant's 
case would be taken after 20 years of service had been completed.  There 
is  no  formal  record  of  any  requested  alteration  to  this  recommendation.  
Additionally there is no record of subsequent recommendation made by a 
board  containing  the  signatures  of  the  board  or  any  authorized  Coast 
Guard official.  
 
b.    The  document  [from  the  Commandant]  directs  that  the  Applicant  be 
retired  on  December  23,  1972.    However,  any  alteration  from  the  CPEB 
original  recommendation  would  have  required  the  acceptance  of  the 
Applicant  and  if  that  recommendation  was  to  separate  prior  to  the 
completion of 20 years of service, the CPEB would have been required to 
append to any unfit for continued service finding a specific opinion as to 
whether or not the member meets the medical requirements for retention.  
 
c.  There is no record that the Applicant was informed of the alteration in 
the  CPEB  findings.    It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  if  the  Applicant  was 
aware  of 
[a] 
recommendation  for  a  specific  option  as  to  whether  or  not  the  member 
met the medical requirement for retention, such as alternation would have 
triggered  the  applicant  to  request  to  be  retained  and  accept  the  CPEB 
findings conditional upon approval of the retention request.   

the  CPEB  appended 

the  alternations  and 

to 

it 

 
  
CGPC stated that he found the alteration in the findings and recommendations 
of the CPEB was unauthorized and deprived the applicant of his full due process under 
the Coast Guard Physical Disability Evaluation System.   Therefore, he recommended 
the correction of the applicant's record to show he completed 20 years of active duty.  

However, CGPC stated it could not recommend that the applicant's record be corrected 
to reflect unevaluated eligibility to CRSC benefits.  CGPC encouraged the applicant to 
apply to the appropriate Coast Guard office for a determination of entitlement to CRSC.  
 
 
With respect to the applicant's National Guard service, CGPC stated that it was 
not  creditable  because  there  was  no  record  showing  that  he  was  called  into  federal 
service during the time spent in the National Guard.    
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  June  1,  2005,  the  Board  received  the  applicant's  reply  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard.  He stated that he was grateful for the Coast Guard's recognition that his 
record  should  be  corrected  to  reflect  placement  on  the  TDRL  effective  March  5,  1973.  
He stated that he hoped the Board could address his request that his schizophrenia and 
diabetes be designated as combat-related.  The applicant further stated: 
 

The advisory opinion does not directly address this other than asserting 
without  explanation,  that  "we  cannot  recommend  altering  his  record  to 
reflect  unevaluated  eligibility  to  [sic]  benefits"  .  .  .    In  addition  it  is  [the 
applicant's] understanding  that [he] is entitled to have his service in the 
Massachusetts  National  Guard  counted  for  retired  pay 
longevity 
 
purposes, even if it is not counted for retirement eligibility purposes.   

 

On  June  3,  2005,  the  Board  received  a  further  response  from  the  applicant  in 
which  he  stated,  "[H]is  diabetes  is  pertinent  not  only  to the  combat-related  issue,  but 
also  to  his  conventional  disability  retirement  percentage.    That  percentage  is  70%;  it 
should be increased to take account of the diabetes." 
 

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 
applicable law: 
 

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

title 10 of the United States Code.   
 

2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition of the 
case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
 
 3.  The applicant's request for corrections to his record showing that he had the 
necessary 20 years of service for a regular retirement and to have his diabetes included 

in  his  Coast  Guard  disability  rating  are  not  timely.  To  be  timely,  an  application  or 
request for correction of a military record must be submitted within three years after the 
applicant  discovered  or  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33 
CFR  52.22.     The  applicant  was  placed  on  the  TDRL  with  less  than  20  years of  active 
service for schizophrenia, not diabetes, in December 1972 and permanently retired with 
less than 20 years of service due to schizophrenia, not diabetes, in 1977. His application 
with respect to these issues should have been filed three years after his 1972 placement 
on the TDRL or at least three years after his 1977 placement on the permanent disability 
retired list.   
 

4.  However, the Board may still consider the application on the merits, if it finds 
it is in the interest of justice to do so. In Allen v. Card, 799 F.  Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 
1992), the court stated that in assessing whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board "should analyze both the reasons for the delay 
and  the  potential  merits  of  the  claim  based  on  a  cursory  review."    The  court  further 
instructed  that  "the  longer  the  delay  has  been  and  the  weaker  the  reasons  are  for the 
delay, the more compelling the merits would need to be to justify a full review."  Id. at 
164, 165.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 
5.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  discovered  the  alleged  error  on  December  12, 
2002,  which  was  about  the  time  Congress  enacted  the  CRSC  law.  The  alleged  errors 
with respect to his retirement existed at the time of his 1972 placement on the TDRL and 
the applicant should have discovered them much earlier or at least by the time he was 
placed  on  the  permanent  disability  retired  list  in  1977.    In  this  regard,  the  applicant 
never stated that he was not aware that he had been medically retired with less than 20 
years of active of service or that schizophrenia was the only condition the PEB found to 
be unfitting for continued military service.  However, the Board finds that it is in the 
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on the 
merits for the following reasons.  (a) The Coast Guard has recommended that the Board 
consider the application and correct the applicant's record to show that he had 20 years 
of service and that he was placed on the TDRL on March 5, 1973.  (b) Congress did not 
enact CRSC, which is the reason for this application, until December 2002.  Therefore, 
the  requirement  of  having  20  years  of  active  service  to  be  eligible  for  compensation 
under  CRSC  could  not  have  been  known  earlier  than  December  2002.    To  deny  this 
application on the basis of  untimeliness  would defeat this applicant's claim for CRSC 
because his military record would show that he has less than 20 years of active service.  
Such a result here would be an injustice to this applicant because the Coast Guard has 
stated that he was probably retired unfairly approximately 2 months before he would 
have  earned  the  20  years  of  active  duty.    (c)  The  applicant  continues  to  suffer  from 
schizophrenia and may not have been able to act sooner.  

 
6.  The Coast Guard has admitted, and the Board finds, that it committed an error 
by discharging the applicant with less than 20 years of active service.  In this regard, the 

Coast  Guard  noted  that  the  PEB  recommended  that  final  action  not  be  taken  on  the 
applicant's  disability  retirement  until  after  he  had  completed  20  years  of  service.  
Moreover, a October 24, 1972, letter from the Commandant to the applicant stated the 
same.  Still, on December 23, 1972, the applicant was placed on the TDRL approximately 
two months short of having completed 20 years of active service, with no explanation 
for  the  change  that  was  apparently  based  on  the  applicant's  December  12,  1972 
acceptance of the PEB findings, which did not include the explanatory note that he be 
allowed  to  complete  20  years  of  service.    The  advisory  opinion  called  this  action  an 
unauthorized alteration of the original PEB findings and recommendation that deprived 
the applicant of his full due process under the Physical Disability Evaluation System. If 
the  Coast  Guard  did  not  agree  with  the  original  PEB,  particularly  after  the 
Commandant advised the applicant that no action would be taken until he completed 
20  years of  service,  it should  have  returned the  record  to the  PEB for  reconsideration 
stating the reason therefore and it should have ensured that the applicant had counsel 
to  advise  him  on  any  modified  PEB  recommendation.      See  Chapter  of  4.C.  of  the 
Physical Disability Evaluation System Manual.   Based upon our review of the military 
record, it did neither, and the failure to do so constituted error.    
 

7.    On  the  issue  of  the  applicant's  belief  that  his  approximately  2  months  of 
National Guard Service is creditable for longevity pay purposes, the Board refers both 
the applicant and the Coast Guard to the last statement of creditable service prepared 
by the Coast Guard prior to the applicant's disability retirement.  It is dated January 1, 
1973, and shows the applicant's National Guard service as creditable for pay purposes, 
while  excluding  it  as  creditable  for  retirement  purposes.      Therefore,  the  Board 
presumes  that  the  Coast  Guard  properly  included  this  period  in  calculating  the 
applicant's pay, if required, and the applicant has offered no evidence to the contrary.  
Therefore  a  ruling  by  the  Board  on  the  issue  would  be  premature.    The  Board  notes, 
however,  that  Article  2.B.6.  of  the  Pay  Manual  states  that  inactive  National  Guard 
service is not creditable, unless "a member held a commission or an enlisted status in 
the inactive National Guard and National Guard of the United States at the same time."  
A  November  5,  1954  statement  of  creditable  service  issued  by  the  Massachusetts 
National Guard, at the request of the Coast Guard, stated that the applicant served in 
the National Guard of the United States, which service was conterminous with inactive 
National  Guard  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  and  therefore  may  be  creditable  for 
purposes of longevity pay. Article 2.B.6. of the Pay Manual seems to indicate that for 
National Guard service to be creditable, an individual must be a  member of the inactive 
National Guard as well as the National Guard of the United States.  The regulation does 
not state that one must be called into federal service to have the time count for longevity 
pay purposes.  

 
8.  It is unclear whether the applicant is asking the Board to find that he should 
have received a disability rating from the Coast Guard for diabetes at the time of his 
1972 placement on the TDRL.  If that is the case, the Board finds that he has submitted 

insufficient  evidence  that  his  diabetes  caused  or  contributed  to  his  unfitness  for  duty 
when  he  was  placed  on  the  TDRL  in  1972.  Chapter  2.A.38  of  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation System (PDES) Manual defines physical disability as any manifest or latent 
physical impairment that separately makes or in combination make a member unfit for 
continued  duty.  Chapter  2.A.50.  defines  unfit  for  continued  duty  as  the  status  of  a 
member who is unable to perform the duties of office, grade, rank, or rating because of 
a  physical  disability.  Chapter  2.C.2.f.i.  makes  clear  that  a  member  may  have  physical 
impairments  ratable  in  accordance  with  the  VASRD,  but  such  impairments  may  not 
necessarily  render  the  member  unfit  for  military  duty.    Chapter  9.A.1.c.  of  the  PDES 
directs that disabilities that are neither unfitting for military service nor contributing to 
the inability to perform military duty shall not be rated by the PEB.   

 
9.   Taking into consideration the provisions just discussed, it is the applicant's 
burden  to  prove  that  conditions  other  than  those  identified  as  disabling  by  the  PEB 
caused him to be unfit or contributed to his unfitness for military duty, i.e. unable to 
perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating.  The  May  25,  1970,  medical 
evaluation is the only pre-retirement report offered by the applicant that mentions his 
diabetes.    That  report  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  "chemical 
diabetes on glucose tol[erance] tests ---under treatment by diet."  It also stated that the 
condition  was  "NCD"  (not  considered  disabling).    Under  Chapter  2.C.3.a.(3)(a)  of  the 
PDES Manual, the PEB rates only “those disabilities  which make  an evaluee  unfit for 
military  service  or  which  contribute  to  his  or  her  inability  to  perform  military  duty.” 
Nothing  in  the  medical  evidence  offered  by  the  applicant  shows  that  his  diabetes 
caused him to be unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, and grade at the time of 
his  1972  placement  on  the  TDRL  or  his  1977  placement  on  the  permanent  disability 
retired list.  More telling is the fact that it was not until 2002 that the DVA determined 
that the applicant's diabetes was disabling and granted him a 20% disability rating for 
the  condition,  approximately  28  years  after  his  disability  retirement  from  the  Coast 
Guard.   

 
10.  Although the applicant submitted evidence showing that the DVA found his 
diabetes to be 20% disabling in 2002, such evidence does not establish error by the Coast 
Guard.  This Board has consistently held that a rating from the DVA does not of itself 
establish  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  not  designating 
certain conditions as disabling.  In Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983), the 
Court  of  Federal  Claims  stated  "[d]isability  ratings  by  the  Veterans  Administration 
[now  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs]  and  by  the  Armed  Forces  are  made  for 
different purposes.  The Veterans Administration determines to what extent a veteran's 
earning  capacity  has  been  reduced  as  a  result  of  specific  injuries  or  combination  of 
injuries. [Citation omitted.]  The Armed Forces, on the other hand, determine to what 
extent a member has been rendered unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, 
or  rating  because  of  a  physical  disability.  [Citation  omitted.]    Accordingly,  Veterans' 

Administration  ratings  are  not  determinative  of  issues  involved  in  military  disability 
retirement cases."   

 
11.    The  Board  will  not,  at  this  time,  entertain  that  portion  of  the  applicant's 
request for a correction to his record showing that his schizophrenia and diabetes are 
combat-related and therefore entitle him to CRSC.  CRSC is a recent law and the Coast 
Guard has established an office within its Headquarters to make initial determinations 
of eligibility for and entitlement to CRSC for Coast Guard retirees.  The Board agrees 
with the Coast Guard that the applicant, with a corrected record showing that he has 
earned 20 years of active duty, should apply to the appropriate Coast Guard office for a 
determination of his entitlement to CRSC. The applicant has not put forth a compelling 
reason why the Board should rule on this issue without first requiring him to seek relief 
from the Coast Guard's CRSC office. While it was necessary possibly for the applicant to 
file with the BCMR to have his record corrected to show that he had 20 years of active 
service to even be eligible for consideration for CRSC, the Board does not find that to be 
a  compelling  reason  for  it to  usurp  the  authority  of  the  Coast  Guard  to render  initial 
determinations of eligibility for CRSC.  It is the Board's understanding that the Coast 
Guard's CRSC office uses the guidance established by DoD to process and decide CRSC 
claims.    That  guidance  requires  that  a  retiree  file  a  claim  (DD  Form  2860)  with 
supporting  documentation  for  CRSC  with  his  or  her  respective  service.    The  Board 
notes that since DoD guidance states that the BCMR is an appellate body for denials of 
CRSC  claims,  it  is  hesitant  to  make  initial  determinations  of  entitlement  to  CRSC.  
Moreover,  the  Board's  rules  require  that  the  applicant  exhaust  his  administrative 
remedies before applying to the BCMR.  On this issue, the applicant has not done so.  
Therefore,  the  Board  will  direct  that  the  applicant  apply  for  CRSC  by  submitting  an 
application  to:    Commander  (adm-1-CRSC),  United  States  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command,  4200  Wilson  Boulevard,  Arlington,  VA    22203-1804.    If  his  application  for 
CRSC is denied, the Board recommends that the applicant appeal that decision to the 
BCMR.   
 

12.    Accordingly,  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  the  limited  relief  discussed  above 

and ordered below.   
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  CDR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (Ret.),  for  correction  of 
his military record is granted in part as follows.  His record shall be corrected to show 
that he was placed on the TDRL on March 5, 1973, and that on this date he had 20 years, 
00 months, and 00 days of active duty.  
 

The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  him  any  amount  he  may  be  due  as  a  result  of  this 

correction. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Frank H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer