DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-238 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed  application,  including  the  applicant’s  military  and  medical  records,  on  August  25, 
2011,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  prepare 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  October  25,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former food service specialist first class (FS1; E-6) who was honorably 
discharged  on  November  8,  2000,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  to  show  that  she  was 
retired with 20 years of service.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that her discharge was unjust because she had more than 19 years 
of service and was never told by her command that she could have requested retirement in lieu of 
discharge.  The applicant alleged that she was never counseled about the regulations and should 
have received the opportunity to retire instead of being discharged. 
 
The applicant alleged that she discovered this error and injustice in her record on January 
 
1, 2010.  She also argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeli-
ness of her application because granting her a retirement would be the right thing to do. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 20, 1987, at age 26, and earned the FS 
rating.  At the time, she had 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days of  prior active duty in the Army.  
The applicant’s record shows that she was placed on weight probation for exceeding her maxi-
mum  allowable  weight  (MAW)  numerous  times  over  the  course  of  her  career.    Each  time,  she 

 

 

was counseled in writing that she would be recommended for discharge if she failed to meet her 
MAW  by  the  end  of  the  probationary  period.    She  was  provided  diet  and  exercise  counseling, 
and each time she met her MAW by the end of the weight probationary period, except once when 
she was unfit for duty due to a painful abdominal condition that was ultimately corrected by sur-
gery.   
 

The  applicant  was  diagnosed  as  a  compulsive  overeater  in  1992  and  provided  inpatient 
rehabilitative treatment.   She was given an aftercare plan, ordered to  attend Overeaters Anony-
mous meetings, and later counseled about her failure to follow the plan. 
 
 
  
On December 23, 1999, a doctor signed a Command Medical Referral form stating that 
there was no underlying medical condition causing the applicant’s obesity.  He particularly noted 
that her thyroid was normal and she did not have diabetes.  The doctor also stated that it was safe 
for her to lose the excess weight, that she could exercise, and that she had been counseled on diet 
and exercise. 
 

On February 29, 2000, the applicant signed a Page 7 on which she was counseled as fol-
lows  and  acknowledged  that  she  had  been  “afforded  the  opportunity  to  review  COMDTINST 
M1020.8 and fully understand the action required”: 
 

18FEB00:  You have this date been determined to be 29 pounds overweight.  Your measurements 
are:  67”  (inches),  Wrist  size  7  –  7¼,  Weight:  211  (pounds).    In  accordance  with  COMDTINST 
M1020.8, you are required to lose 29 pounds or drop below 35% body fat by 21SEP00.  If you fail 
to reach compliance by the end of this probationary period, you will be recommended for separa-
tion.  Furthermore, until you are in compliance with weight or body fat standards, all actions listed 
in Chapter 3 of COMDTINST M1020.8 will be withheld.  By signature below, you acknowledge 
both this entry and that you have been afforded the opportunity to review COMDTINST M1020.8. 

On April 6, 2000, the applicant signed a Page 7 on which she was counseled as follows 

 
 
by her commanding officer (CO): 
 

00APR06:  On 18Feb00, I signed [a Page 7] informing you that you had been placed on a proba-
tionary period to lose your excess weight/percent body fat.  On 04Apr00, HS2 [X] as part of your 
weekly  monitoring  program  weighed  you.    You  have  gained  18  pounds  since  your  probationary 
period  began.    As  of  this  date,  you  are  50  pounds  above  your  maximum  allowable  weight.    In 
accordance  with  COMDTINST  M1020.C,  during  your  probationary  period,  you  are  expected  to 
demonstrate reasonable progress (i.e., lose approximately ½ the required weight or half the excess 
% body  fat at the  midpoint of  your probationary period) toward attaining  your  maximum allow-
able  weight.   Failure to demonstrate  such reasonable progress  may provide sufficient  grounds  to 
process  for  separation  under  Article  12-B012(a)(6),  CG  PERSMAN,  COMDTINST  M1000.6 
series.  To assist you in obtaining your maximum allowable weight, this document was prepared to 
remind you of the progress requirement and to provide you with contact individuals that may be 
able to provide you information to assist you in losing weight.  If you wish to contact a dietician, 
arrangements  can  be  made  through  HS2  [X].    If  you  need  assistance  in  establishing  an  exercise 
program,  the  unit  Wellness  Coordinator,  SK2  [X]  at  extension  4812,  will  be  able  to  assist  you.  
Additionally, if  you choose to exercise during  your designated lunch break,  your  supervisor  will 
support you in this effort.  If you feel you are not being supported in this area, advise your Chain 
of Command. 

 

 

 

On May 26, 2000, the Command Medical Referral Form prepared by a doctor on Decem-

 
ber 23, 1999, was re-signed and re-stamped by the same doctor. 
 

On June 13, 2000, the applicant signed a Page 7 on which she was counseled as follows: 

 

 

00JUN09:  On 18Feb00, I signed [a Page 7] informing you that you had been placed on a proba-
tionary period to lose your excess weight/percent body fat.  05JUN00 marked the midpoint of your 
probationary period.  As part of your weekly monitoring program, you were weighed on 05 JUN 
00  and  were  found  to  be  39  pounds  over  your  maximum  allowable  weight  of  182  pounds.    In 
accordance with COMDTINST M1020.8, you are required to be within your maximum allowable 
weight or drop below 35% body  fat by 21SEP00.  If you  fail to reach compliance by the end of 
your probationary period, the Command will recommend you for separation under Article 12-B-12 
(a)(6), CG PERSMAN, COMDTINST M1000.6 series. 

On  August  7,  2000,  the  applicant  was  charged  with  violations  of  the  Uniform  Code  of 
Military  Justice  and  relieved  of  her  duties.    The  charges  against  her  are  not  apparent  in  the 
record. 
 
On September 9, 2000, the applicant sought treatment for anxiety.  She said she had suf-
fered from anxiety with some feelings of depression for about six months because she was under 
a great deal of stress.  She was prescribed Zoloft and referred for a mental health consultation. 

 
On September 26, 2000, the applicant signed the following Page 7 entry, which had also 

been signed by her CO: 
 

00SEP20:  On 18Feb00, you were placed on probation due to excess weight/percent body fat.  On 
this date, your probationary period has come to an end.  You weighed 222 pounds and indicated 
42%  body  fat  and  you  have  not  achieved  your  maximum  allowable  weight/body  fat.    In  accord-
ance with Commandant Instruction M1020.8 (series), you are hereby notified that you will be rec-
ommended for separation. 

 

On September 26, 2000, the applicant’s CO advised her in a letter that he would be rec-
ommending her discharge from the Coast Guard for weight control failure.  The CO noted that 
when placed on weight probation on February 18, 2000, her weight had been 211 pounds and her 
body  fat  measured  43%  and  that  at  the  end  of  her  probationary  period,  her  weight  was  222 
pounds  and  her  body  fat  was  44%.    Her  maximum  allowable  weight  was  182  pounds  and  her 
maximum allowable body fat was 35%.  The CO advised her that she could submit a statement to 
object  to  the discharge and that her  rebuttal  would be  forwarded to  the Coast  Guard Personnel 
Command (CGPC) with his recommendation. 
 
 
On  September  28,  2000,  the  applicant  had  an  appointment  with  a  psychologist.    He 
reported that she was feeling sad,  angry,  and hopeless and could  not sleep well  because of her 
pending  discharge.    The  applicant  told  the  psychologist  that  in  August  2000,  a  doctor  at  Cape 
May, New Jersey, had prescribed Xanax and Ambien for her anxiety and insomnia. 
 
 
On  October  2,  2000,  the  applicant  submitted  a  rebuttal  to  the  recommendation  for  dis-
charge.  She stated that discharge would not be in her best interest and that she had been under a 
lot of work-related stress.  She noted that before August 7, 2000, she had been working very long 
hours  as  the  senior  crewmember  of  a  short-staffed  galley,  and  that  after  she  was  blindsided  by 

 

 

criminal charges on August 7, 2000, she was relieved of her duties and did not have any mean-
ingful work to do.  The applicant questioned the accuracy of the corpsman’s measurements and 
suggested  that  her  medical  records  might  have  been  tampered  with.    The  applicant  asked  for 
another chance to lose the weight or the opportunity to retire. 
 
 
On October 3, 2000, the applicant’s CO recommended to  CGPC that she be discharged 
for  weight  control  failure.    The  CO  forwarded  her  military  and  medical  records  and  the  appli-
cant’s rebuttal to CGPC with his recommendation. 
 
 
On October 11, 2000, CGPC issued orders for the applicant to be discharged for weight 
control failure no later than November 8, 2000.  CGPC noted that the applicant was eligible for 
transition  benefits  and  could  request  reenlistment  if  she  lost  the  required  weight  within  two 
years. 
 
On  October  25,  2000,  the  applicant  underwent  a  pre-separation  physical  examination.  
 
The  examination  showed  that  she  was  67½”  tall,  had  a  wrist  size  of  6½”,  and  weighed  211 
pounds.  She was found fit for separation, but she signed a form objecting to that finding.   
 
On November 6, 2000, the applicant  wrote a letter to  the Commandant  objecting to  her 
 
discharge.  She stated that after being found fit for separation, she consulted another doctor, who 
found that she had suffered a relapse of her eating disorder because she had been under a great 
deal of stress at work.  She stated that her discharge was premature and  
 

should  be  held  in  abeyance  until  the  charges  against  me  are  resolved  and  the  stress  I  am  going 
through is abated.  Then only should I be placed back on the weight program with monitoring and 
counseling.    If  that  is  not  possible,  I  request  to  be  medically  discharged  and  afforded  my  full 
retirement rights because of my twenty years of loyal service to the United States Coast Guard. 

 
 
The applicant attached to her letter a doctor’s report dated October 25, 2000, stating that 
the  combination  of  the  applicant’s  stress,  compulsive  overeating  disorder,  and  treatment  with 
Zoloft  and  Ambien  would  definitely  have  prevented  her  from  achieving  her  weight  probation 
goal.  The doctor noted the following: 
 

1.  Patient was placed on the weight program in November 1999; in July 2000 she was relieved of 
all her duties and placed on report for dereliction of duty  with the uncertainty that she  would be 
facing either a Captain’s Mast or Court Martial.  From July to date, these charges have not been 
resolved.  She is a single parent and is concerned for herself and her dependent child.  The uncer-
tainty  concerning  the  outcome  of  these  charges  has  exacerbated  an  already  stressful  condition 
(being on the weight program) and may have caused a relapse of her COMPULSIVE OVEREAT-
ING DISORDER. 
 
2.  When the patient realized that the stress was causing her to be depressed, she sought help from 
the clinic … [and] was put on medication for her depression. 
 
3.  COMDTINST M1020.8C, Chapter 4, provides an exemption for members who incur illness or 
injury  during  a  probationary  period  that  may  adversely  affect  their  weight  loss  program.    Para-
graph  A  states  that  these  members  should  be  referred  to  a  medical  officer/contract  physician  for 
determination  of  whether  it  is  medically  safe/feasible  for  a  member  to  continue  [a]  weight  loss 
regimen.    In  [the  applicant’s]  case,  I  strongly  suggest  that  she  be  referred  for  evaluation  by  an 
Armed  Forces  psychiatrist  or  Armed  Forces  clinical  psychologist  to  determine  if  this  patient  is 

 

 

 

suffering from a relapse of COMPULSIVE OVEREATING DISORDER.  Once the determination 
has  been  made  as  to  whether  this  is  a  relapse  of  the  above  described  condition  and  the  pending 
charges are resolved, then and only then should she be placed back on the weight program or be 
medically retired. 
 
4.  In my opinion her discharge for failure to comply with the weight program is premature based 
on Chapter 4 of COMDTINST M1020.8C. 
 
A. 
 
 
P. 

Adjustment disorder with depressed mood 
Compulsive overeating disorder, relapse 

Psychiatric evaluation for eating disorder upon return to CG GP Philadelphia 

On November 8, 2000, CGPC notified the applicant’s command that the applicant’s letter 
dated November 6, 2000, had been carefully reviewed by CGPC’s medical staff, who found that 
she  was  “physically  qualified  for  separation.”    CGPC  told  the  command  to  discharge  her  that 
same  day.    The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  due  to  weight  control  failure  pursuant  to 
Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  28,  2011,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-

 
 
mended that the Board deny the requested relief. 
 
 
The JAG stated that the application should be denied for untimeliness because the appli-
cant  failed  to  submit  any  evidence  of  error  or  injustice  or  “any  relevant  documentation  or 
rationale  to  support  her  position.”    Therefore,  the  applicant  should  be  denied  because  it  is 
untimely and lacks merit.” 
 
 
The JAG further argued that it is well settled that the Coast Guard “is entitled to enforce 
its weight control policy on service members with more than 19 years of service,” citing BCMR 
Docket No. 2006-054, in which the Board upheld the discharge of a member with more than 19 
years  of  active  duty  for  weight  control  failure.    The  JAG  noted  that  members  discharged  for 
weight control failure may be reenlisted if they comply with the Coast Guard’s weight standards 
within  2  years  of  their  discharge,  but  the  applicant  apparently  did  not  do  so.    Therefore,  he 
argued, the applicant is entitled to no relief. 
 
 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
prepared  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    The  PSC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  dis-
charged  due  to  weight  control  failure  when  she  had  19  years,  2  months,  and  5  days  of  active 
duty.    The  PSC  stated  that  retirement  is  only  authorized  for  those  with  more  than  20  years  of 
service or for those who are 62 years of age.  Because the applicant met neither of those criteria, 
PSC stated, her administrative discharge was proper.  PSC stated that the applicant has failed to 
substantiate an error or injustice in the record and her application is untimely, so no relief should 
be granted. 
 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 25, 2012, the applicant  responded to  the views of the Coast  Guard.   The 
applicant stated that she was blindsided in November 2000, when she was called into the com-
mand’s board room and told that it was her last day on active duty and that she had to sign a lot 
of  papers.    She  alleged  that  she  was  given  no  warning  that  she  would  be  kicked  out,  and  her 
enlistment  was not  due to expire for more than a  year.  She had written  a letter to  a  board but 
never received a response.   

 
The applicant stated that it was unjust for the Coast Guard to discharge her after she had 
sacrificed  so  much  during  her  19  years  of  service  by,  for  example,  serving  away  from  her 
daughter on shipboard.  She stated that she is still estranged from her daughter because she was 
home so infrequently when she was on active duty.  In addition, she was very depressed after her 
discharge and had no veterans’ points and so could only get work in places like fast food restau-
rants, check-cashing establishments, and grocery stores.  The applicant stated that she provided 
top-rated service for more than 19 years and it is an injustice that she was not retired. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
COMDTINST M1020.8 (series) provided the Coast Guard’s weight and fitness standards 
 
and  regulations  in  2000.    Article  2.D.1.  states  that  all  military  personnel  will  be  weighed  each 
October and April, but COs may screen members against standards anytime they deem it neces-
sary.  Article 2.D.4. states that members who are found to be overweight will not be advanced, 
transferred to a new unit, assigned to training, or paid bonus installations until they are in com-
pliance with regulations. 
 
 
Article 2.E.1. states that members not in compliance with MAW and body fat standards 
“shall be referred to a medical officer or local physician, who shall make a recommendation to 
the  command  as  to  the  member’s  health,  whether  or  not  weight  and/or  body  fat  loss  would  be 
detrimental to the member’s health, and the member’s ability to participate in each component of 
the monthly fitness assessment.”  Article 2.E.3. states that a “member with any underlying medi-
cal  condition  that  limits  or  prohibits  his/her  participation  in  a  specific  portion  of  the  fitness 
assessment will be excused from only that portion of the fitness assessment, but must continue to 
participate  in  weekly  fitness  enhancing  activities  outlined  in  his/her  detailed  fitness  plan.    The 
physician will document his or her finding in the member’s health record.”  Article 2.E.4. states 
that a “member found to have an underlying medical condition that would make fitness activities 
detrimental to his/her health is still responsible for meeting MAW standards within the timeline 
specified by the probationary period.” 
 
 
Article 2.F.1. states that “overweight members who also exceed their maximum body fat 
percentage shall be placed on probation, during which they must lose their excess weight or body 
fat.”  Article 2.F.4. states that the probation period “shall equal the amount of time it would take 
the member to lose all excess weight at an average of one pound per week or one percent body 
fat per month, whichever is greater.”  Article 2.F.5. states that “[m]embers whose probationary 
period has been determined to be equal to or greater than 36 weeks both by weight calculations 
and by body fat calculations … shall be processed for separation.  If the situation exists in which 

 

 

one of the two calculations results in a period in excess of 36 weeks, and one less than 36 weeks, 
the  member  shall  be  assigned  a  probationary  period  based  upon  the  calculated  period  which  is 
less than 36 weeks.” 
 
 
Article 2.F.3. states that if a doctor determines that the member has a medical condition 
that prevents her from losing weight or body fat at the required rate, the CO may request permis-
sion from Headquarters to hold the probation in abeyance.   
 
 
Article  2.F.6.  states  that  “[d]uring  probation,  members  should  demonstrate  reasonable 
and consistent progress toward attaining their MAW (i.e., lose approximately half of the required 
weight  or  half  the  excess  percentage  of  body  fat  by  the  midpoint  of  the  probationary  period).  
Failure to  demonstrate such reasonable and consistent  progress  may provide sufficient  grounds 
for commanding officers to [initiate discharge] before the probationary period expires.” 
 
Article 2.G.1. states that “[m]embers who exceed their MAW and body fat percentage to 
 
such an extent that they  would be placed in  a probationary period of 36 weeks or more, fail to 
demonstrate reasonable and consistent progress during probation, or fail to attain their MAW or 
body fat by the end of their probation … shall be processed for separation.” 
 
 
Article 3.A.1.  states that a “[m]ember who incurs an injury or illness during a probation-
ary period that may adversely affect their weight loss should be referred to a medical officer  or 
contract physician to determine whether it is medically safe and feasible for the member to con-
tinue the weight loss program.”  Article 3.A.2. states that if such members are found to have a 
medical condition that precludes weight loss, their probationary periods should be held in abey-
ance. 
 
 
Article  2.H.2.  states  that  “[a]ctive  duty  enlistment  members  discharged  for  exceeding 
MAW or body fat standards, and now seeking to re-enter the service, may request reenlistment to 
their former rate provided they comply with MAW or maximum percent body fat, meet appear-
ance standards and have been out of the Service no more than 24 months.  Commander (CGPC-
epm) will evaluate requests based on Service needs and the member’s past performance.” 
 
 
Article  12.B.12.a.10.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a  member  may  be  discharged 
for the convenience of the Government due to  “[o]besity, provided a medical officer certifies a 
proximate cause of the obesity is excessive voluntary intake of food or drink, rather than organic 
or other similar causes apparently beyond the member’s control.” 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant’s 

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

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

 

2. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant  discovers the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant alleged that she 

 

 

discovered the error in her record in 2010.  However, the preponderance of the evidence shows 
that  she  knew  in  November  2000  that  she  was  being  discharged  due  to  weight  control  failure 
instead of being retired.  Therefore, the Board finds that the application is untimely. 
 

3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  an 
application  if  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 to determine 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).   
 

4. 

The  applicant  provided  no  reason  for  her  delay  in  contesting  her  lack  of  retire-

ment.   
 

5. 

The  Board’s  cursory  review  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  case  cannot  prevail  on 
the  merits.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  the  Coast  Guard  followed  its  regulations  when 
she exceeded her MAW in 2000 by granting her a probationary period, counseling her repeatedly, 
and offering her the opportunity to object in writing to the discharge and to the doctor’s finding 
that  she  was  fit  for  separation.    The  record  shows  that  her  objections  and  a  different  doctor’s 
report she submitted were forwarded to CGPC for review as required by regulation, but her CO’s 
recommendation  for  discharge  was  approved.    These  records  are  presumptively  correct  under  
33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  See Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing 
Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), for the required presumption, absent 
evidence to the contrary, that Government officials have carried out their duties “correctly, law-
fully,  and in  good faith.”).  The applicant  has submitted insufficient evidence to  overcome this 
presumption.  In particular, the Board notes that although the October 25, 2000, doctor’s report 
that  the  applicant  submitted  with  her  objection  to  her  discharge  states  that  taking  Zoloft  and 
Ambien would have made it difficult for her to lose weight, there is no evidence that the appli-
cant  was  taking  those  medications  throughout  her  probationary  period.   And  although  the  doc-
tor’s report recommended that she be evaluated to determine whether it was safe and feasible for 
her to lose weight, during the probationary period, a doctor had already twice certified on a Com-
mand Medical Referral Form that she could safely diet and exercise to lose the weight and had 
no underlying medical condition that made it unsafe or impossible for her to do so. 
 

6. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  alleged  that  she  qualified  for  and  could  have 
requested  retirement  in  2000  even  though  she  had  not  accumulated  20  years  of  active  duty.  
However, the Coast Guard’s Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) under Public Laws 
102-484  and  103-337  expired  in  September  1999,  and  there  was  no  TERA  in  effect  when  the 
applicant failed weight probation in 2000. 
 

7. 

Furthermore, the Board notes that the applicant’s case is very similar to that of the 
plaintiff in  Chapman v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl.  570 (2010), aff’d, 427 Fed. Appx. 897 (Fed. 
Cir.  2011),  in  which  a  Coast  Guard  veteran  challenged  a  BCMR  decision  upholding  his  dis-
charge for weight control failure even though he had served more than 19 years on active duty.  

 

 

Like  the  applicant  in  this  case,  Mr.  Chapman  had  been  on  weight  probation  numerous  times 
during his  career, had been diagnosed as a compulsive overeater, and had undergone treatment 
for compulsive overeating.  Also as in this case, a doctor certified on a Command Medical Refer-
ral Form that it was safe for Mr. Chapman to lose the weight by diet and exercise and that he had 
no underlying medical condition that made it unsafe or impossible for him to do so.  Mr. Chap-
man’s CO initiated his discharge at the midpoint of his probationary period because he was not 
making consistent progress  toward meeting his  MAW.  In this case, the applicant’s CO waited 
until she failed to meet her MAW by the end of her probationary period to initiate her discharge 
even though the applicant had not made reasonable progress by the midpoint in June 2000.  The 
Court of Federal Claims upheld this Board’s decision denying relief in the Chapman case, noting 
that  even  though  the  consequences  to  the  plaintiff  were  severe,  the  Board’s  decision  was  sup-
ported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and on appeal the Fed-
eral Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.  Given the similarity between this case and 
the Chapman case, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim lacks potential merit. 
 

Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the 
statute of limitations in this case because the applicant long delayed applying to the Board and 
her claim cannot prevail on the merits.  The application should be denied. 
 
 

 
8. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 

 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

  

 
 H. Quinton Lucie 

 

 

 
 James H. Martin 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

her military record is denied.