DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-148 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Hale, D. 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    It  was  docketed  on  July  7,  2004,  upon  the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated March 17, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  RE-3G1 
reenlistment  code  to  RE-1.2    The  applicant  argued  that  the  code  should  be  upgraded 
because he “would like to serve [his] country” and that although he was discharged for 
medical reasons, he has not had any medical problems since leaving the Coast Guard. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On May 22, 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  On August 23, 1990, 
the  applicant  underwent  a  pre-training  physical  and  was  determined  to  be  in  good 
health and qualified for training and placement into the recruit training program.   
 

                                                 
1 A reenlistment code of RE-3G means the member is eligible for reenlistment except for a condition (not 
physical disability) interfering with performance of duty. 
2 RE-1 means the applicant is eligible for reenlistment. 

 
According  to the  applicant’s  record,  he  was  doing  well  until  the  third  week  of 
recruit  training  (September  2,  1990),  when  he  reported  to  recruit  sick  call  with 
complaints  of  malaise,  nasal  congestion,  murky  black  urine,  and  vague  back  pain.  
During  his  visit  to  sick  call,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not  think  he  was 
emotionally  fit  or  ready  for  training.    Although  the  physical  examination  was 
essentially  negative,  the  applicant  was  nonetheless  admitted  to  the  hospital  on 
September 2, 1990, for further tests and evaluation.  While in the hospital, the applicant 
was  diagnosed  as  having  idiopathic  recurrent  renal  hematuria.3    The  attending 
physician noted that the applicant was not fit for full duty for an indefinite period of 
time. 
 

On September 7, 1990, the applicant was evaluated in the hospital by a civilian 
psychologist and was also diagnosed as having an atypical anxiety disorder associated 
with avoidant personality disorder.  The psychologist recommended that the applicant 
be discharged from the Coast Guard.   

 
On September 13, 1990, the applicant was discharged from the hospital, and the 
discharging  physician  noted  that  he  was  “fit  for  limited  duty,  no  training,  to  be 
followed  in  the  outpatient  department.”    Shortly  after  being  discharged  from  the 
hospital, the applicant was evaluated for the purpose of an initial medial board (IMB).4 
On  October  17,  1990,  after  evaluating  the  applicant’s  medical  history,  the  IMB 
recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard because he was 
not fit for full duty and training.  The IMB stated that the applicant did not meet the 
minimum standard for enlistment and retention in the Coast Guard.  

 
On  November  1,  1990,  the  Coast  Guard’s  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board 
(CPEB)5 determined that the applicant was not fit for duty and he was found to be 10% 
disabled  as  a  result  of  his  recurrent  renal  hematuria.      On  November  28,  1990,  the 
findings  of  the  CPEB  were  approved  and  the  applicant  was  directed  to  be  separated 
from the Coast Guard.  The applicant accepted the CPEB findings, under the advice of 
counsel. 

 
On March 25, 1991, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant 
to  Article  12.B.12  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    He  received  an  honorable 
discharge,  a  separation  code  of  JFV6,  and  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  was 
                                                 
3 Blood from the kidneys in the urine with no known cause.  Dorland’s Medical Dictionary, 2000. 
4  An  IMB  is  a  written  report  of  a  medical  board  convened  by  appropriate  authority  to  evaluate  a 
member’s fitness for duty and to make recommendations consistent with the findings.  Article 2.A.24. of 
the PDES Manual. 
5  The  CPEB  is  a  permanently  established  administrative  body  convened  to  evaluate,  on  a  record  basis, 
whether active duty, reservists, or temporarily disabled retired members are fit for duty, and it they are 
not, to determine and rate their disabilities.  Article 4.A.1. of the PDES Manual. 
6  JFV  is  used  to  denote  an  involuntary  separation  when  a  physical  condition,  not  a  physical  disability, 
interferes with the performance of duty.  SPD Code Handbook, page 2-5. 

“convenience  of  the  government.”    The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  received  a 
RE-3G reenlistment code.  He served for 7 months and 5 days. 
 

On May 15, 1991, the applicant submitted a claim for disability benefits thru the 
Veterans  Administration  (VA).    On  October  10,  1991,  the  applicant  underwent  a 
Medical Examination for Disability Evaluation at the VA, and was diagnosed as having 
hematuria and high blood pressure.   

 
On  January  29,  1992,  the  VA  completed  its  rating  decision  and  although  it 
determined  that  the  applicant’s  hematuria  was  service  connected,  they  nonetheless 
denied disability benefits because the applicant was asymptomatic.  The VA noted that 
“although  VA  lab  tests  revealed  findings  referable  to  the  applicant’s  condition,  the 
symptoms  were  non-disabling  and  no  impairment  in  earning  capacity  for  civil 
occupations  is  noted.”    In  addition,  the  VA  failed  to  find  service  connection  for  the 
applicant’s  anxiety  disorder  with  avoidant  personality,  and  disability  benefits  for this 
condition were also denied. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  November  15,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  The JAG argued that the applicant failed to submit a timely application and 
failed to show why it was in the best interest of justice to excuse the delay. 
 

In addition, the JAG argued that the applicant offered no evidence that the Coast 
Guard committed any error or injustice when it discharged him.  The JAG stated that 
the applicant was separated for a physical disability and a RE-3G reenlistment code was 
entirely  appropriate.    JAG  argued  that  the  Board  should  not  change  the  applicant’s 
reenlistment  code  because  changing  the  code  from  RE-3G  to  RE-1  would  allow  the 
applicant  to  enlist  in  any  branch  of  the  armed  forces  without  demonstrating  that  his 
previously disqualifying physical condition was resolved. 
 

However,  the  JAG  and  CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  alternative 
relief  because  the  Coast  Guard  made  errors  in  the  separation  and  reenlistment  codes 
that the applicant received.  CGPC stated that the applicant should have been given a 
separation  code  of  JFR7  and  a  reenlistment  code  of  RE-3P.8    CGPC  stated  that  these 
codes  would  have  been  more  appropriate  because  they  more  accurately  depict  the 
circumstances  of  the  applicant’s  discharge.    CGPC  also  stated  that  the  original 
                                                 
7 JFR:  Discharge for a physical disability not existing prior to entry on active duty established by physical 
evaluation board processing.   
8  RE-3P  means  that  the  member  is  eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for  a  disqualifying  factor  (physical 
disability).   

reenlistment  code  of  RE-3G  does  not  preclude  the  applicant  from  reenlisting  in  the 
Coast Guard. 

 
CGPC  also  noted  that  correcting  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  to  RE-3P 
would be of little or no benefit to the applicant because both the RE-3G and RE-3P codes 
have the same affect on the applicant’s ability to reenlist.  To wit, before the applicant 
could reenlist in any of the armed forces, these reenlistment codes would require that he 
present proper documentation and verification of resolution of the condition for which 
the code was originally assigned.  

 
Finally, CGPC noted that if the applicant wishes to reenlist in the Coast Guard, 
he  may  do  so  by  applying  at  any  local  recruiting  office  with  documentation  and/or 
statements  concerning  resolution  of  the  disqualifying  factors  for  which  he  was 
originally discharged.  Although the JAG and CGPC did not recommend that the  

 
requested relief be granted, neither objected to correcting the applicant’s record if the 
following corrections were requested by the applicant: 

 
a. 
b. 
c.  
 

Separation Code: 
 
Reenlistment Code:  
Narrative Description: 

JFR 
RE-3P 
Physical Disability 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 19, 2004, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 

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

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article  12.B.12.a.5.12.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1991 
authorized  the  Commandant  to  discharge  members  at  the  convenience  of  the 
government if they had “[a]  condition, not a physical disability which interferes with 
performance  of  duties.”    Article  12.B.12.  required  that  a  member  discharged  for  the 
convenience  of  the  government  be  given  an  honorable  or  general  discharge,  as 
appropriate under article 12.B.2.   
 
 
The Separation Program Designator (SPD) Handbook authorizes the assignment 
of an RE-3G, RE-3X, or a RE-4 reenlistment code with the JFV separation code.  It states 
that the JFV code is to be used for “involuntary separation as directed by established 
directive, when a condition, not a physical disability, interferes with the performance of 
duty.”  The authorized narrative reason for separation for this code is “…condition, not 
physical  disability,  interfering  with  performance  of  duty.”    The  only  authorized 
reenlistment codes are RE-3G, RE-3X, and RE-4.  
 
The SPD Handbook authorizes the assignment of a RE-3P or a RE-4 reenlistment 
 
code with the JFR separation code.  It states that the JFR code is to be used when there is 
an involuntary separation as directed by established directive, for a “physical disability 
not  existing  prior  to  entry  on  active  duty  established  by  physical  evaluation  board 
processing.”    A  member  in  receipt  of  this  code  is  not  entitled  to  severance  pay.    The 
authorized narrative reason for separation under this code is ”Physical Disability.”  The 
only authorized reenlistment codes are RE-3P and RE-4. 
 
 
Article 2.E.1.b.5:  M1100.2D, the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, states that an 
RE-3 (alpha character) reenlistment code is not a bar to enlistment or reenlistment and 
shall not be, by itself, the reasons to reject a prospect or applicant.  
 

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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
1. 
§ 1552.    
 

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

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  3  years  after  the 
applicant discovers or should have discovered the alleged error in his record.  10 U.S.C. 
§ 1552.  The applicant signed and received his discharge documents indicating that his 
reenlistment  code  was  RE-3G  when  he  signed  his  Certificate  of  Release  From  Active 
Duty  (DD214)  in  1991.    The  applicant  did  not  provide  an  explanation  why  he  waited 
nearly 14 years to seek an upgrade of his reenlistment code.  The Board finds that the 
applicant knew or should have known the meaning of the reenlistment code when he 
signed his DD214.  Thus, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. §  1552,  the  Board  may  waive  the  3-year  statute  of 
limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in the 
interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  Board  should  consider  the 
reason  for the  delay  and  conduct  a  cursory review  of  the  merits of  the  case.    Allen  v. 
Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  Although the applicant has not explained his 
delay, a cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the JAG and CGPC have 
determined that an error was made and that the applicant’s separation and reenlistment 
codes were unjust.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive 
the statute of limitations in this case. 
 

 4. 

  The applicant was properly discharged from the Coast Guard because of 
a  physical  disability  (hematuria)  which  caused  him  to  be  unfit  for  duty.    The  Board 
notes that this diagnosis is fully supported by the extensive medical documentation in 
the applicant’s service record.  There is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard 
committed  any  error  or  injustice  in  discharging  him  for  this  physical  disability.  
Moreover, the record indicates that the applicant received all due process with respect 
to his discharge, in accordance with the Physical Disability Evaluation System Manual. 
 

5. 

Although the applicant’s discharge was proper, both the JAG and CGPC 
concluded that the applicant’s separation code, reenlistment code, and narrative reason 
for separation were inappropriate and should be changed.  The JAG and CGPC stated 
that because the applicant was discharged for a physical disability, a reenlistment code 
of RE-3P, a separation code of JFR, and a narrative reason for separation by reason of 
physical disability “would more accurately depict the circumstances of the applicant’s 
discharge.”  In light of the recommended changes to the applicant’s reenlistment code, 

6. 

separation code, and narrative reason for separation, the Board finds that the separation 
authority should be changed from 12.B.12. to 12.B.15. of the Personnel Manual.    
 
A member of the BCMR staff contacted the applicant and asked him if he 
 
would  accept  the  alternative  relief  recommended  by  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant 
responded in the affirmative.  Accordingly, the applicant’s record should be corrected 
to reflect the changes recommended by the JAG and CGPC. 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 
The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  the  correction 
 
of  his  military  record  is  denied,  except  that  his  DD  Form  214  shall  be  corrected  as 
follows: 
 

Block 25 shall be corrected to show Article 12.B.15 of the Personnel Manual as the 
separation authority. 

Block 26 shall be corrected to show JFR as the separation code. 

Block 27 shall be corrected to show RE-3P as the reenlistment code. 

Block 28 shall be corrected to show Physical Disability as the narrative reason for 
separation. 
 
The Coast Guard shall issue the applicant a new DD Form 214. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 

 

 
 Molly McConville Weber