DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-055 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 case after receiving the 
completed application December 14, 2008, 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 August  27,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  was  retired  based 
upon his time in the service rather than his physical disability.  He alleged that he should have 
been given the choice and that he has been “robbed of [his] dignity” and stigmatized because his 
discharge form, DD 214, shows “Disability, Permanent” as his narrative reason for retirement.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On June 15, 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  He served on continuous 
active duty and on June 1, 2003, accepted an appointment as a chief warrant officer (CWO).  On 
May 1, 2007, the applicant accepted an appointment as a temporary lieutenant.  
 
 
On October 6, 2007, the applicant was admitted to a hospital after an MRI showed that he 
had suffered a pulmonary embolism.  His symptoms were shortness of breath and a swollen leg.  
It was his second pulmonary embolism as he had had one eleven years earlier following orthope-
dic surgery.  The cause of the second was reported to be “unclear, hence unprovoked,” although 
the applicant reported having been struck on the leg while playing basketball five days earlier.  
The doctor stated that the applicant had thus experienced “2 potentially life-threatening throm-
botic  events”;  was  at  increased  risk  of  having  more;  and  should  take  an  anticoagulant  (Cou-
madin) for at least a year if not indefinitely.   
 

On November 7, 2007, the applicant was examined by a hematologist, who noted that she 
had counseled the applicant for an hour about his diagnosis, prognosis, and options.  Following 
this appointment, the applicant was referred for evaluation by a medical board. 
 
 
On February 5, 2008, the applicant underwent evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB).  The MEB noted that he had been enrolled in the Coumadin clinic and was taking 10 
milligrams per day except for 7.5 milligrams on Thursdays.  The MEB stated that the applicant’s 
prognosis was good and his condition stable but that he would have to continue taking Coumadin 
for the rest of his life.   The MEB diagnosed his condition as “recurrent  pulmonary  embolism 
(415.1) with anticoagulant medication (208.90).”  Also on February 5, 2008, the applicant signed 
an acknowledgement of the report of the MEB.  He acknowledged that the MEB had found that 
as a result of his diagnosis, he was no longer medically qualified for retention on active duty.  He 
also signed a statement indicating that he did not desire to rebut the MEB’s findings. 
  
On March 14, 2008, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded the report of the 
 
MEB to the Personnel Command and strongly recommended that the applicant be retained on 
active duty.  The CO stated that the applicant was an Information Technology Systems Engineer 
and Business Manager, who supervised a staff of eighteen contractors.  He stated that the appli-
cant was an administrator and that his work was “not strenuous and [could] best be described as 
desk work.”  The CO stated that the applicant remained highly productive at this work and that 
his attendance had been exemplary.  In addition, he noted that the applicant’s retention would be 
critical to several large and important projects and strategic initiatives. 
 
 
On May 6, 2008, a doctor at Coast Guard Headquarters sent an email to the applicant ask-
ing how long the hematologist had advised him to take Coumadin, and whether the applicant was 
given an option in how long to take it.  The applicant replied that the hematologist “stated that 
her first option was Coumadin for a year, but later stated that any time you have a recurring epi-
sode the normal course is to place the patient on Coumadin for life.  She discussed the dangers of 
not taking anticoagulation medication and I agreed that I would rather take the medication than 
have another episode.” 
 
 
On May 20, 2008, the applicant’s case was reviewed by an Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB).  The IPEB found the applicant “unfit for continued duty by reason of physical dis-
ability” and cited the unfitting condition as asymptomatic “Pulmonary Vascular Disease requir-
ing life long anticoagulant therapy.”  Because his condition was asymptomatic, his disability was 
rated as zero percent under the Veterans’ Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).  The 
IPEB recommended that the applicant receive a permanent medical retirement. 
 
 
On May 30, 2008, the Personnel Command forwarded the IPEB’s report to the applicant.  
The Personnel Command advised the applicant that he was entitled to free legal counsel to help 
him decide whether to accept or reject the IPEB’s findings and that he had 30 days to submit his 
response.  Also on May 30, 2008, the applicant signed an election form on which he declined the 
opportunity to consult counsel and to be represented by counsel.  He also signed an acknowl-
edgement of the IPEB’s findings and recommendation, accepted the recommended disposition, 
and waived his right to a formal hearing. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  In so doing, he adopted the 
findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel Service 
Center (PSC; successor to the Personnel Command). 
 

The PSC stated that in 2008 the applicant was not qualified for a voluntary retirement 
even though he had more than 20 years of service.  The PSC explained that under the Personnel 
Manual, CWOs who accept a commission as a temporary lieutenant are obligated to serve as a 
temporary officer for at least three years from the date of appointment.  The applicant was com-
missioned on May 1, 2007, and incurred a three-year service obligation as of that date.  There-
fore, he was ineligible for a voluntary, time-based retirement in 2008.  The PSC stated that if the 
applicant had requested a voluntary retirement in 2008, his request would have been denied.   

 
The PSC also noted that the applicant had accepted the findings and recommendation of 
the IPEB that he be retired because of a permanent physical disability.  The PSC stated that there 
was no error or injustice in the procedures that led to the applicant’s medical retirement.  The 
PSC  also  noted  that  although  the  applicant  complained  of  a  stigma  attaching  to  his  medical 
retirement, he did not submit any evidence of one. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 11, 2009, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

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

 
On July 21, 2008, the Commander of the Personnel Command approved the findings of 
the IPEB.  On July 23, 2008, the Personnel Command issued disability retirement orders for the 
applicant.  The orders state that his DD 214 should show separation code SFJ and “Disability, 
Permanent” as the narrative reason for separation. 
 
 
On August 31, 2008, the applicant was honorably retired as a CWO by reason of “Dis-
ability, Permanent,” under Article 17.B.6. of the Personnel Manual, with separation code SFJ.  
He had completed 21 years, 2 months, and 18 days of active duty. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article  1.A.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  President  may  appoint  enlisted 
members, CWOs, and licensed officers of the Merchant Marine as temporary Regular commis-
sioned officers up to the grade of lieutenant, depending upon their time in service, experience, 
and qualifications.  Article 1.A.4.a. states that upon “original appointment as temporary Regular 
commissioned officers, such officers incur a three-year active duty commissioned service obli-
gation.”  Article 1.A.8.a.1. states that once a temporary commissioned officer has been selected 
for promotion by an active duty selection board, the officer may apply for a permanent commis-
sion. 
 

 
Article 12.C.6. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he Commandant may retire a com-
missioned warrant officer who has at least 20 years of active service at his or her request” and 
that a CWO may be involuntarily retired upon completion of 30 years and 60 days of active ser-
vice  or  within  60  days  of  his  62nd  birthday.    Article  12.C.9.  states  that requests  for  voluntary 
retirement must be approved by the Personnel Command and that an officer must normally have 
completed at least two years in grade/rank before a request for voluntary retirement at that rank 
will be approved. 
 
 
Chapter 3.F.19.c.(6) of the Medical Manual states that use of a “[r]equired chronic anti-
coagulant,  other  than  aspirin,  such  as  Coumadin”  is  normally  disqualifying  for  retention  on 
active duty.  Chapter 3.F.2. states that members with the medical conditions listed in Chapter 
3.F. should be referred for evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board to determine their fitness 
for continued service. 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook states that members being manda-
 
torily  retired  because  of  a  permanent  physical  disability  receive  the  separation  code  SFJ  and 
“Disability, Permanent” as the narrative reason for separation on their DD 214s. 
 

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: 
 

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

1. 

  
3. 

The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was retired 
because he had sufficient time in service to retire rather because of a permanent disability.  He 
alleged that he should have been given the option and that his disability retirement has robbed 
him of his dignity and stigmatized him.   

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.1  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that 
Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, 
lawfully, and in good faith.”2  
 
 
The record shows that the applicant received all due process with regard to his 
medical retirement.  Because of his dangerous medical condition, he apparently elected to take 
                                                 
1 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)).   
2 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

4. 

an  anticoagulant  medication,  Coumadin,  indefinitely.    Chapter  3.F.19.c.(6)  of  the  Medical 
Manual states that use of a required anticoagulant such as Coumadin is normally disqualifying 
for  retention  on  active  duty.    Given  the  doctor’s  note  about  counseling,  it  appears  that  the 
applicant made the decision to take Coumadin indefinitely knowing that it would likely result in 
his separation.  On February 5, 2008, the MEB notified him that because he had been diagnosed 
him  with  recurrent  pulmonary  embolism  and  anticoagulant  medication,  he  was  not  medically 
qualified for retention on active duty.  That same day, he signed a form indicating that he did not 
wish  to  rebut  the  findings  of  the  MEB.    Moreover,  after  the  IPEB  recommended  his  medical 
retirement for a permanent disability with a zero percent disability rating, the applicant waived 
his right to consult counsel and accepted the findings and recommendation of the IPEB.  There is 
no evidence of error or injustice in the record with regard to the applicant’s medical retirement. 

Before the applicant’s medical retirement on August 31, 2008, he had accepted an 
appointment as a temporary lieutenant on May 1, 2007.  Under Article 1.A.4.a. of the Personnel 
Manual, CWOs who accept a temporary appointment as a regular commissioned officer incur a 
three-year  active  duty  service  obligation.    The  PSC  has  stated  that  this  obligated  service 
requirement  precluded  the  applicant  from  requesting  a  voluntary  retirement  in  2008  or  from 
having  such  a  request  approved  because  he  had  not  completed  three  years  as  a  temporary 
lieutenant.    The  Board  also  notes  in  this  regard  that  Article  12.C.9.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
states that a request for a voluntary retirement by any officer will not normally be approved until 
the officer has served at his current rank for at least two years. 

Under the provisions of the SPD Handbook, members who are being mandatorily 
separated because of a permanent disability are assigned the SFJ separation code and “Disability, 
Permanent” as the narrative reason for separation on their DD 214s.  Therefore, the applicant’s 
DD  214  was  prepared  correctly  in  this  regard.    The  Board  also  notes  that  the  applicant  has 
submitted no evidence to support his claim that he has been stigmatized and robbed of dignity 
because of his medical retirement from the Coast Guard. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because he has not proved 
by a preponderance of the evidence that his medical retirement because of a permanent disability 
was erroneous or unjust.  

 
5. 

 
6. 

7. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG (Retired), for correction of 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 David A. Trissell 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

his military record is denied.