DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-078 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  on 
February 2, 2007, upon receipt of a completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 
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  October  25,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a retired Aviation Maintenance Technician First Class (AMT1), asked the 
Board to correct his record to show that he retired on May 1, 2006, rather than on November 1, 
2005.    He  further  requested  that  he  receive  back  pay  and  allowances  for  the  period  from 
November 1, 2005 to May 1, 2006.   
 

The applicant alleged that on November 1, 2005, the date on which he retired, he was 
100% disabled and he should have had a medical board or a delay in his retirement.  He stated 
that  in  August  2005  he  had  just  undergone  major  back  surgery  and  he  was  under  continuous 
treatment  for  a  thyroid  condition  after  having  undergone  thyroid  surgery  for  cancer  in  early 
2004.     
 
The applicant stated that the Coast Guard knew of his conditions prior to the submission 
of his November 1, 2004 request to retire.  He alleged that a flight surgeon who was treating him 
advised him to submit his retirement request because a medical board would take too long.  He 
stated that at that time he did not have back problems, although he had thyroid cancer.  He stated 
that on the recommendation of the flight surgeon and his aviation detailer he submitted a request 
for  retirement.    Approximately  two  weeks  later,  he  was  involved  in  an  automobile  accident. 
According to the applicant the accident resulted in a dramatic decline in his health, with major 
back  and  neck  pain.    As  a  result  of  the  increased  back  problems,  combined  with  continuing 
treatment for his thyroid condition, he requested to withdraw his retirement request, which was 

denied  by  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  complained  that  the  Coast  Guard  retired  him  on 
November 1, 2005, even though he just undergone back surgery in August 2005 and was in a 
body cast, depressed, and unable to work.    The applicant stated that the Coast Guard refused to 
delay his scheduled retirement because it  did not consider his condition to be a chronic or an 
acute illness; but the applicant argued that the Coast Guard failed to explain why his condition 
did  not  qualify  as  being  acute.    He  therefore  requested  that  the  Board  amend  the  Physical 
Disability  Evaluation  System  (PDES)  Manual  to  define  the  term  “acute  injury.”  He  also 
requested that the  Board compensate his  family  for the hardship the Coast Guard inflicted on 
them by retiring him when he was disabled and could not work.      

 
The applicant submitted several emails detailing his attempt to have his retirement date 
delayed or to have a medical board.  On January 12, 2005, the applicant submitted a copy of an 
email to a Chief Petty Officer D asking to withdraw his retirement request and to be evaluated by 
a flight surgeon to determine whether he could return to the aviation field.   On the same date, a 
LCDR  B  responded  to  the  applicant’s  email.    She  told  the  applicant  that  he  could  submit  a 
request  to  withdraw  his  retirement  request,  but  under  Article  12.C.11.c.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual,1  she  did  not  anticipate  recommending  approval  of  such.    She  told  the  applicant  that 
there  was  no  service  need  for  his  skill  because  the  Coast  Guard  had  “already  made  all 
advancement  calculations  and  included  those  advancement  calculations  with  [the  applicant’s] 
approved  retirement.”    She  further  told  the  applicant  that  even  if  he  applied  to  withdraw  his 
request under the PDES regulation, she did not anticipate recommending approval, although she 
admitted that she did not know the extent of his medical condition.  In a follow-up email she told 
the applicant that he could go to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) or through United 
States TRICARE for treatment once he retired.   
 

On  January  14,  2005,  the  applicant  sent  an  email  to  a  LT  D  seeking  assistance  in 
withdrawing his retirement request.   He explained that the flight surgeon, Captain G, told him to 
submit his retirement request because a medical board would take too long and that he could go 
through the DVA for treatment.  The applicant also stated in that email that his aviation detailer 
stated  that  he  would  not  accept  the  applicant  back  into  aviation.    He  wrote  that  soon  after 
submitting his retirement request, he had a motor vehicle accident that aggravated his lumbar 
spine and  caused a hernia of his C-6  cervical disc and that he has low  back  radiating pain, a 
herniated disc, and damaged nerves.  He stated that he is required to take medication daily in 
order to work and that he had already undergone three epidural injections.  He also noted that he 
had had thyroid cancer and was still being treated for a thyroid condition.   LT D’s reply, if any, 
is not in the record. 

 
The applicant submitted an undated letter to his senator complaining about the manner in 
which  the  Coast  Guard  had  treated  him.    The  applicant’s  letter  to  the  senator  noted  the 
complaints discussed above.     

 

                                                 
1   Under Article 12.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, members who are going to retire must undergo a 
physical examination.  If the examination uncovers an impairment that is listed as disqualifying under 
the Medical Manual, the member may be processed for a disability retirement under the PDES “only if 
the provisions of the [PDES Manual], paragraph 2.C. are satisfied.” 

The senator contacted the Coast Guard on behalf of the applicant.  In reply, on April 3, 
2006, the Coast Guard advised the senator that the applicant could file an application with the 
BCMR if he thought that he had suffered an error or injustice.  The Coast Guard also stated the 
following in that letter: 
 

The  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  approved  [the  applicant’s]  requested 
retirement date of November 1, 2005.  Under current law and service policy, once 
retirement orders are approved, members cannot not delay their retirements and 
they are not entitled to a medical board unless a condition arises where an illness 
or injury is acute or grave.  [The applicant’s] condition was not acute or grave.[2]  
His request to delay his retirement was considered in light of this policy, and after 
determining  that  his  condition  did  not  meet  this  criteria,  his  request  was 
disapproved.    As  a  retired  Coast  Guard  member,  [the  applicant]  has  extensive 
medical benefits through the TRICARE system and the Department of Veteran’s 
Affairs. 

 
Pertinent Medical Background 
 

An October 29, 2003 radiological report indicated that the applicant had a history of low 
back pain that radiated to the left lower extremity.   The radiologist’s impression was that the 
applicant  had  “[m]inimal  change  of  degenerative  disease  involving  the  lumbosacral  spine.”  
Upon examination, the radiologist found that the applicant had tiny spurs arising from vertebral 
bodies and that the disc space between L5-S1 was slightly narrowed. 

 
On January 14, 2004, the applicant underwent a left thyroid lobectomy and in May 2004 
he had a total thyroidectomy.  Medical reports noted the applicant had difficulty in regulating his 
hormone level since that surgery because he was not able to tolerate statins.  

 
A May 2004 radiological report noted that the applicant had a normal thoracic spin.  An 
MRI  was  taken  of  the  lumbar  spin  showed  a  “straightening  of  the  curvature  consistent  with 
muscle spasm.  There is degenerative disc disease at L2-3 and L5-S1.  There is modic type 1 
degereration of L5-S1 with bright signal in T2 and low signal in T1.  There is moderate sized 
central to the left and inferior disc protrusion at L5-S1 which impresses on the thecal sac and 
nerve root.” 

 
   
 

                                                 
2     Article 2.C.2.b.(1)(b)M1850.2C  (PDES) Manual states that:   

 
Continued performance of duty until a member is scheduled for separation or retirement 
for reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fitness for duty.  This 
presumption  may  be  overcome  if  it  is  established  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence 
that:  . . .  (b) acute, grave illness or injury, or other deterioration of the member's physical 
condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for separation or 
retirement for reasons other than physical disability which rendered him or her unfit for 
further duty.  

A July 20, 2004 neurosurgical initial office consultation showed that the applicant was 
diagnosed with a left lumbar radiculopathy secondary to a herniated nucleus pulposus at the left 
L5-S1 level.  He was treated with home exercises and a lumbar epidural steroid injection.  The 
report noted that the applicant had had an MRI of the thoracic spine on May 26, 2004 that was 
negative.  The report noted that the MRI of the lumbar spine showed degenerative disc disease 
with decreased signal at all levels except for L3-4 which had a normal signal.  It further noted 
that at L5-S1 there was decreased disc space height.   “There is a large left and central herniated 
nucleus pulposus with impression on the thecal sac and left S1 nerve root.”  The neurological 
report stated that the applicant had had chronic low back pain with waxing and waning in the 
back and legs over a number of years, but that it had gotten worse approximately two months 
ago.   

 
A September 17, 2004 neurological report stated that the applicant had undergone one 
epidural steroid injection but that his back symptoms were worse with the pain starting in his left 
buttock  and  radiating  down  the  left  leg.    However,  there  was  no  numbness,  paresthesias,  or 
weakness.  An EMG shows there was a left L5-S1 radiculopathy.   

 
A  September  30,  2004  neurosurgical  report  stated  that  a  range  of  options  had  been 
discussed with the applicant for treatment of his back that included microlumbar discetomy at the 
left  L5-S1 vertebrae  as  well as the possibility of future surgery.  However, at the time of the 
examination, a second epidural injection was the recommended treatment.   
 

 

On November 8, 2004, the applicant requested voluntary retirement effective November 
1, 2005, allegedly on the advice of his flight surgeon and detailer.   Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) approved the applicant’s request for retirement.   
 

A neurological progress note of December 4, 2004 stated that the applicant was involved 
in a motor vehicle collision on November 12, 2004, and was taken to the hospital with neck pain 
and increased back pain.  A cervical MRI taken on November 24, 2004 showed that the applicant 
had  a  diffuse  herniated  disc  at  the  C5-6  level.    The  neurologist’s  impression  was  that  the 
applicant  had  suffered  a  new  onset  of  cervical  and  right-sided  numbness  with  worsening  low 
back pain since the motor vehicle accident of November 12, 2004.    

  
A  December  20,  2004  neurological  progress  note  stated  that  a  lumbar  MRI  from 
December 9, 2004 showed multilevel disc degeneration and  a large left  L5-S1 herniated disc.  
There was decreased signal at L1-2 and L2-3 as well as L4-5 and L5-S1.  There was a bulge at 
L4-5  and  there  was  decreased  height  at  L5-S1.      The  neurologist’s  impression  was  that  the 
applicant had “1.  Bilateral lumbar radiculopathy with left herniated nucleus pulposus L5-S1.   2.  
Decreased  disc  space  height  with  bilateral  foraminal  stenosis  L5-S1  with  multilevel  disc 
degeneration and cervical radiculopathy with C5-6 HNP.” 

 
On  July  8,  2005,  the  applicant  began  the  medical  examination  process  to  determine 
whether he was fit  for separation/retirement.    The applicant reported that he underwent back 
surgery on August 26, 2005, which is supported by the separation medical examination report.   

On September 14, 2005, the applicant signed an entry on the medical examination report 
form acknowledging that he was found not qualified for service.   The doctor noted the following 
defects and diagnoses in Block 71 on the medical examination form:  “1. Back [with] no ROM 
[i]n any plane 2[degree] brace for recent fusion.  2.  [Had] thyroid cancer [surgery] one year ago 
[with] difficulty regulating synthroid dose & needs further monitoring for recurrence.  3. [Had] 
familial hypercholesterolemic uncontrolled on Zetia and unable to take statins  . . .” 

 
In  Block  78  of  the  physical  examination  form  (recommendations-further  specialist 
 
examination indicated), the doctor recommended that the applicant have convalescent leave for 
four to six months and light duty for 12 to 24 months during recovery from surgery.  The doctor 
also recommended physical therapy three times per week for 12 to 24 weeks to begin six weeks 
after surgery and continued follow-up with endocrinology & oncology for the thyroid cancer.   
 
 
In the comments section of the September 14, 2005 medical report, the doctor noted that 
the  applicant  was  in  a  back  brace  and  that  he  should  wear  it  for  the  next three  months.    The 
report states that the applicant had radicular pain and weakness and had noted no improvement.  
With respect to the applicant’s thyroid cancer and surgery, the doctor stated that he was on a high 
dose of synthroid to keep the thyroid hormone suppressed, which had been difficult to regulate 
with  the  applicant  suffering  weight–loss,  heat  intolerance,  restlessness,  anxiousness  and 
agitation.    The  report  indicated  that  the  applicant  had  osteoarthritis  in  many  of  his  joints  that 
limited  his  activities  and  that  he  suffered  from  familial  hypercholesterolemic  that  had  been 
difficult to control due to his inability to tolerate any of the inhibitor class drugs.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On July 19, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    He  based  his 
recommendation in part on a memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC.  
 
 
 CGPC stated that a review of the applicant’s case does not substantiate his claim that 
there was an error or injustice in processing his retirement.  CGPC noted that the applicant had 
voluntarily requested retirement which was approved for November 1, 2005.  CGPC also noted 
that  several  months  prior  to  the  applicant’s  retirement  he  was  involved  in  a  motor  vehicle 
accident which exacerbated a back injury, requiring surgery that he received two months prior to 
his retirement date.  With regard to the applicant’s contention that he should have been retained 
on active duty, CGPC stated the following:   
 

The  Coast  Guard  consistently  applies  the  policy  within  the  PDES  Manual 
regarding such cases.  There is no provision to retain the individual to allow for 
continued recuperative care as the applicant contends.  Even though the applicant 
was not entitled to be processed through the PDES    . . . since he had an approved 
voluntary retirement, he was entitled to continued care and disability evaluation 
through  the  Department  of  Veteran’s  Affairs.    The  approval  of  the  applicant’s 
voluntary  retirement  request  set  in  motion  a  number  of  administrative  actions 
which are not able to be reversed without unduly impacting other Coast Guard 
members.  In cases where the Coast Guard approves delays in retirement orders 

members are granted extensions to allow for completion of surgery and short term 
post operative care, typically 1 month.  In January 2005, the applicant informally 
inquired  .  .  .  with  his  command  regarding  canceling  his  retirement.    However, 
there is no record of the applicant requesting to cancel his retirement pursuant to 
[Article  12.C.11.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual].    There  is  no  provision  to  extend 
individuals  for  full  rehabilitative  care  that  is  covered  under  the  Department  of 
Veteran’s Affairs.  Once a member retires, the Coast Guard cannot be responsible 
for a member’s future employment.  The Service does not abandon such members 
as  they  are  entitled  to  retirement  pay  and  have  extensive  medical  benefits  as  a 
retiree.    There is no merit to the applicant’s request for the BCMR to change CG 
policy. . .  “ 
 
The  applicant  indicates  that  the  VA  awarded  him  a  disability  rating  of  10%.[3]  
The  subsequent  VA  disability  does  not  reflect  an  omission  regarding  his 
separation  processing.    The  military  disability  system  determines  unfitness  for 
duty  whereas  the  VA  ratings  are  based  on  an  evaluation  of  the  whole  person, 
including  an  evaluation  of  the  evaluee’s  employability  status  and  earning 
capacity.  Accordingly, VA ratings are not determinative of the issues involved in 
military disability determinations.  The evaluation of the applicant at the time of 
discharge is not effected by a subsequent VA disability rating.  The applicant is 
being  processed  through  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  disability  system 
which is the appropriate venue for disposition of this case.   

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Provisions of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Under Article 12.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, members who are going to retire must 
undergo  a  physical  examination.    If  the  examination  uncovers  an  impairment  that  is  listed  as 
disqualifying  under  the  Medical  Manual,  the  member  may  be  processed  for  a  disability 
retirement under the PDES “only if the provisions of the [PDES Manual], paragraph 2.C. are 
satisfied.” 
 
Provisions of the PDES Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C)  
 

The PDES Manual  governs the separation of members due to physical disability.  Article 
2.C.2.a.  provides  that  the  “sole  standard”  to  be  used  in  “making  determinations  of  physical 
disability as a basis for retirement or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties of office, 
                                                 
3   The Board has been unable to corroborate this statement in the record.  The applicant stated in a 
telephone conversation with the staff that he had a 70% combined DVA rating. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On July 20, 2007, a copy of the views of the Coast Guard was mailed to the applicant for 
him to submit a reply.  The Board did not receive a response to the Coast Guard’s views from the 
applicant.   
 

grade,  rank  or  rating  because  of  disease  or  injury  incurred  or  aggravated  through  military 
service.”  Article 2.C.2. of the PDES Manual states the following: 

 
b. 
The law that provides  for disability retirement or separation (10 U.S.C., chapter 61) is 
designed to compensate a member whose military service is terminated due to a physical disability 
that  has  rendered  him  or  her  unfit  for  continued  duty.    That  law  and  this  disability  evaluation 
system  are  not  to  be  misused  to  bestow  compensation  benefits  on  those  who  are  voluntarily  or 
mandatorily  retiring  or  separating  and  have  theretofore  drawn  pay  and  allowances,  received 
promotions, and continued on unlimited active duty status while tolerating physical impairments 
that have not actually precluded Coast Guard service.  The following policies apply. 
 
   (1) 
Continued performance of duty until a member is scheduled for separation or retirement 
for  reasons  other  than  physical  disability  creates  a  presumption  of  fitness  for  duty.    This  pre-
sumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that: 
 
 
adequately in his or her assigned duties; or 
 
 
acute,  grave  illness  or  injury,  or  other  deterioration  of  the  member’s  physical 
condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for separation or retirement 
for reasons other than physical disability which rendered him or her unfit for further duty. 

the  service  member,  because  of  disability,  was  physically  unable  to  perform 

(b) 

(a) 

 

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.  The application was timely. 

 
2.   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  without  a 
hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
3.    On  November  1,  2004,  the  applicant  requested  to  be  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard 
effective November 1, 2005.  However approximately two weeks later, on November 12, 2004, 
he  had  a  motor  vehicle  accident  that  aggravated  his  lower  back  condition  and  caused  a  new 
injury to his cervical spine.  The applicant then requested to withdraw his retirement request, but 
the Coast Guard denied it.   After various unsuccessful treatments (home exercises and epidural 
injections) for his back, he underwent surgery on his back in August 2005, after which he was 
required to wear a body cast for at least three months.  While still in the body cast, the Coast 
Guard separated the applicant on November 1, 2005, his scheduled retirement date.  

 
4.    Prior  to  submitting  his  November  1,  2004  retirement  request  the  applicant  had 
suffered from thyroid cancer, had surgery for it, and was under continuous treatment to manage 
his  hormone  levels.    The  Board  also  notes  that  the  applicant  had  back  problems  prior  to 
submitting his retirement request.  In this regard, an October 29, 2003 radiological report stated 
that the applicant had a history of low back pain that radiated to the left lower extremity.   In 
addition, a July 20, 2004 neurological report stated that he had developed a left herniated nucleus 
pulposis at the L5-S1 level, and other medical evidence shows that the applicant had undergone 

b. 
The law that provides  for disability retirement or separation (10 U.S.C., chapter 61) is 
designed to compensate a member whose military service is terminated due to a physical disability 
that  has  rendered  him  or  her  unfit  for  continued  duty.    That  law  and  this  disability  evaluation 
system  are  not  to  be  misused  to  bestow  compensation  benefits  on  those  who  are  voluntarily  or 
mandatorily  retiring  or  separating  and  have  theretofore  drawn  pay  and  allowances,  received 
promotions, and continued on unlimited active duty status while tolerating physical impairments 
that have not actually precluded Coast Guard service.  The following policies apply. 
 
   (1) 
Continued performance of duty until a member is scheduled for separation or retirement 
for  reasons  other  than  physical  disability  creates  a  presumption  of  fitness  for  duty.    This  pre-
sumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that: 
 

adequately in his or her assigned duties; or 
 
 
acute,  grave  illness  or  injury,  or  other  deterioration  of  the  member’s  physical 
condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for separation or retirement 
for reasons other than physical disability which rendered him or her unfit for further duty. 

(b) 

(a) 

the  service  member,  because  of  disability,  was  physically  unable  to  perform 

at least one epidural treatment prior to his request to retire.  The applicant contended that on the 
advice of his flight surgeon and detailer he submitted his request to retire.  He stated the flight 
surgeon  told  him  that  a  medical  board  would  take  too  long  and  that  he  could  get  treatment 
through the DVA.  There is no evidence in the record to corroborate the applicant’s contention in 
this regard; nor is there any evidence that the applicant was forced or coerced into submitting a 
retirement  request.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  retirement  request  was 
voluntary and made with full knowledge of his medical problems and conditions at that time.  
 

5.  The applicant also alleged that the Coast Guard committed an error and/or injustice by 
not  delaying  his  scheduled  retirement  or  convening  a  medical  board  after  his  motor  vehicle 
accident.  However, since the applicant requested voluntary retirement prior to his motor vehicle 
accident,  to  obtain  a  retirement  or  separation  by  reason  of  physical  disability  he  must  satisfy 
Article 2.C.2.b. of the PDES Manual which states as follows: 
  

 

6.  The applicant has not rebutted the presumption that he was fit for duty under either 
exception discussed above.  He has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that because 
of a disability he was physically unable to perform adequately in his or her assigned duties" as 
required  under  Article  2.C.2.b.(1)(a).    While  the  September  2005  separation/retirement 
examination determined that the applicant was not qualified for service at that time, the doctor 
never stated that the applicant suffered from a physical disability that caused him to be unable to 
adequately perform his  assigned duties.  The PDES Manual defines physical disability  as any 
manifest  or  latent  physical  impairment  due  to  disease,  injury,  or  aggravation  of  an  existing 
condition that separately or in combination makes a member unfit for continued duty.  Article 
2.A.38, PDES Manual.  Unfit for continued duty is defined as the status of a member who is 
physically and/or mentally unable to perform the duties of office, grade, or rating because of a 
physical disability.  Article 2.A.50 of the PDES Manual.  There is nothing in the medical record 
before the Board where any doctor has stated that the applicant was unfit for continued service 
due to any of the conditions mentioned in his medical record.  Nor is there any evidence that the 
applicant  was  placed  on  extended  sick  leave  or  limited  or  light  duty  during  his  Coast  Guard 
career,  except  for  surgery  two  months  prior  to  his  scheduled  retirement  date.  According  to 

Article 2.C.2.b.e. of the PDES Manual, a member convalescing from a disease or injury may be 
found fit for duty if the member is expected to improve to the point of being able to perform the 
duties  of  his  rate.    Further  the  PDES  Manual  states  that  although  a  member  may  have 
impairments  rated  under  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities, 
such impairments do not necessarily render him or her unfit for military duty.  Article 2.C.2.F.i.. 
of the PDES Manual.  The applicant has failed to prove that the injury to his back caused him to 
be permanently unable to perform the duties of his rate, although he may have been suffering 
from  various  conditions  and  impairments  including  surgery  and  recovery  that  temporarily 
interfered with his ability to perform his assigned tasks at a given time. 

 
8.  Nor has the applicant shown that he suffered from an acute, grave illness or injury or 
other  deterioration  of  his  physical  condition  immediately  prior  to  or  coincident  with  his 
processing for retirement of reasons other than physical disability which rendered him or unfit 
for further duty under Article 2.C.2.b.(1)(b) of the PDES Manual.   The PDES Manual does not 
define  grave  or  acute,  so  the  Board  will  apply  their  ordinary  meaning.    Acute  is  defined  in 
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary as a “sudden onset” and grave is defined “as likely 
to  produce  great  harm  or  danger.”    On  November  12,  2004,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  a 
motor vehicle accident that according to the neurosurgeon resulted in a “[n]ew onset of cervical 
and  right-sided  numbness  with  worsening  low  back  pain.”    Indeed  the  cervical  MRI  of 
November  24,  2004  showed  a  herniated  disc  at  C5-6  that  had  not  been  present  prior  to  the 
accident.      The  MRI  of  the  applicant’s  lumbar  spine  subsequent  to  the  accident  was  not 
significantly different from that taken prior to the motor vehicle accident.   However, the motor 
vehicle  accident  occurred  almost  a  year  prior  to  the  applicant’s  scheduled  November  1,  2005 
retirement  date,  and  therefore  cannot  be  considered  to  have  occurred  immediately  prior  to  or 
coincident  with  his  processing  for  separation.    The  applicant  waited  almost  a  year  after  the 
accident  to  undergo  surgery  and  he  has  presented  no  evidence  that  he  was  not  able  or  fit  to 
perform  his  duties  during  this  period,  except  for  the  period  he  underwent  surgery  and  his 
recovery.      It  is  difficult  to  find  that  the  new  injury  to  the  cervical  spine  and  the  slight 
aggravation to the lumbar spine resulting from the motor vehicle accident could be considered 
acute or grave under this set of circumstances.  Nothing in the medical reports provided to the 
Board describes the applicant’s back condition as acute or grave.   

 
9.  The Board further finds that the applicant failed to prove that he suffered from any 
other deteriorating physical condition immediately prior to or coincident with his processing for 
a voluntary retirement that rendered him unfit for further duty.  As discussed above, the applicant 
underwent back surgery two months prior to his retirement, but there is no medical evidence that 
that  surgery  caused  deterioration  in  his  physical  condition  that  rendered  him  unfit  for  further 
duty, although it may have rendered him not fit for duty for a short period of time.   Not fit for 
duty and unfit for further duty are not synonymous terms.  Not fit for duty means an inability to 
perform ones immediate assignment for a short period, whereas unfit for further duty means the 
existence  of  a  physical  disability  that  renders  the  member  unfit  to  perform  the  duties  of  his 
office, grade, rank, or rating.    See Article 12.A.10. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant has 
not presented any evidence that as a result of his surgery he was rendered unfit for further duty.  
Nor was there a medical prognosis that the applicant would not completely recover from his back 
surgery  or  that  he  would  have  been  unable  to  resume  the  duties  of  his  office,  grade,  rank,  or 
rating after surgery, if he had not retired.  

 
10.   Regarding the applicant’s other conditions such as his thyroid condition and familial 
hypercholesterolemic, the Board notes that the applicant was aware of these conditions when he 
requested  retirement  on  November  1,  2004,  and  they  cannot  be  considered  to  have  occurred 
coincident  with  his  processing  for  retirement  on  November  1,  2005.    As  stated  above,  the 
applicant alleged that the flight surgeon told him to request retirement because a medical board 
would  take  too  long;  however,  he  has  not  presented  any  corroboration  for  this  assertion.  
Moreover, the applicant has not established that the flight surgeon’s alleged statement, even if 
corroborated, would have entitled him to a medical board.    

 
11.  With respect to the applicant’s allegation that he should have had a medical board, 
Article 3.D.7. of the Personnel Manual states that “a member who is being processed for . . .  
retirement  by  reason  of  age  or  length  of  service,  shall  not  normally  be  referred  for  physical 
disability evaluation.”  This provision is consistent with that portion of Article 2.C.2.b. of the 
PDES which states that the law for disability retirement or separation (10 U.S.C., chapter 61) is 
designed  to  compensate  a  member  whose  military  service  is  terminated  due  to  a  physical 
disability that has rendered him or her unfit for continued duty.  Here, the applicant’s career was 
not terminated by reason of physical disability but by his own voluntary request for retirement.   

 
12.    The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  direct  that  the  PDES  instruction  be  revised  to 
include a definition of an acute illness.  While the Board has no authority to direct the Coast 
Guard to take such action, the Board recommends that the Coast Guard review its instruction to 
determine whether it would be helpful to both the members and the Coast Guard to define or 
explain  the  term  an  “acute,  grave  illness  or  injury.”  However,  as  stated  above,  applying  the 
ordinary meaning of the terms “acute” and “grave” to the applicant’s conditions, the Board is 
satisfied that none were acute or grave.   
 

13.  The applicant has failed to show that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

in this case.  Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to relief.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG  (Ret.),  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young