Office of General Counsel

BCMR Docket 36-95

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10, United States Code. It commenced on December 21, 1994, by the filing of a completed application with the BCMR.

This is the final decision in this case, dated October 30, 1995. It is signed by three duly appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.

Applicant's Request

The applicant, a former seaman (SN; pay grade E-3), was honorably discharged on November 25, 1992 by reason of unsuitability. He was assigned a JMB separation code (unsuitability-personality disorder) and an RE-4 reenlistment code (not eligible for reenlistment). He claimed that the Coast Guard incorrectly characterized his discharge and requested that his separation and reenlistment codes be upgraded. He asked the BCMR to upgrade his separation code from JMB to KDH (demonstrated dependency) or KND (demonstrated dependency or hardship), and to upgrade his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-3H (hardship) or RE-3D (dependency).

The applicant claimed that the reenlistment and separation codes entered on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty (DD Form 214) were "unfair, improper, and not justified by [his] record." In addition to other miscellaneous documentation, the applicant submitted a statement of seven arguments pertaining to his discharge which he asked the BCMR to review.

The first argument the applicant presented was that the reenlistment and separation codes on his DD Form 214 were unfair and unjustified by the record. He claimed that there were "substantial mitigating circumstances involving [his] spouse's . . . prior and ongoing recovery from alcoholism and her emotional instability . . . [which] did not appear to receive consideration ...," as the cause of his behavioral problems while serving in the Coast Guard.

Secondly, the applicant claimed that the "unsuitability" characterization of his discharge was not supported by the information in his record. He claimed that the determination of the terms of his discharge was based solely on one medical report, and not on his entire Coast Guard record. He claimed that the characterization, "based upon limited data, is unfair as it affects [him] further by excluding [him] from service in any military component . . . ."

The third allegation of the applicant was that the use of the "Commander-Directed Evaluation Report," dated October 5, 1992, as a basis for the characterization of his discharge was "seriously flawed." The applicant claimed that in his report to the Commanding Officer (CO), the examining psychologist failed to consider the outside family counseling in which he and his family were participating when the final diagnosis was made. The applicant's fourth argument was that the psychologist reviewing his case did not make a diagnosis based on the substance of his military record, but merely made comments based on "what the textbook suggests that one would expect to observe in a similar individual rather than a specific diagnosis based upon a complete and comprehensive Psychological Testing and Evaluation."

The fifth allegation of the applicant is that he was never counseled of his right to a medical board prior to discharge, pursuant to Article 12-B-16 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (Personnel Manual). In his sixth argument, the applicant stated that other incidents in his record, which the CO referred to when making the decision to discharge him, occurred because of his wife's behavioral problems. He claimed that he and his wife had been attending numerous counseling sessions to help deal with these problems, but that his wife's continuous "provocations" had a "direct bearing and a negative influence on [his] workplace demeanor."

The final argument of the applicant was that he was poorly advised with regard to the possibility of application for a "hardship or dependency discharge." He claimed that he asked if this type of discharge was available to him, but said that "the Command would not support [his] effort because they didn't believe that [his] issue would qualify."

The applicant also submitted a statement from his private marriage counselor who had been working with the applicant and his wife for a period of approximately six months. In the statement, the counselor stated that it was her opinion that the applicant's condition was not permanent or non-curative, but was merely the result of marital stress. She stated that the applicant's wife's behavior exacerbated the stress the applicant was experiencing, thereby hindering his job performance.

The marriage counselor also stated that she "in no way dispute[s] the impressions and diagnostic report by the evaluating medical doctor . . . made on 5 October 1992," but that she regretted that the Coast Guard made no attempt to contact her to review her records on the applicant before deciding to discharge the him.

The applicant asserted that he was seeking a "fair and just disposition of [his] case based upon all the facts." He claimed that aside from the problems with his family, his Coast Guard performance reflected good judgment, and he asserted that he had produced excellent work during his time in the service.

On April 25, 1995, the Coast Guard recommended that the application be denied. The applicant submitted a response to the Coast Guard's views on June 1, 1995.

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a four-year term on September 3, 1991. He was discharged from the Service on November 25, 1992. He had served one year, two months, and eighteen days in the Coast Guard at the time of discharge.

The applicant's record contains a letter from his CO dated October 13, 1992 which advised the applicant that he was being processed for discharge. The CO said that he based his decision to discharge the applicant on the report of the applicant's clinical psychologist, dated October 5, 1992. The CO also considered in his decision two police reports on the applicant which cited domestic violence, and reports he had received from the applicant's officer in charge.

The CO stated that the psychologist recommended that the applicant be discharged because of his diagnosis of a personality disorder with narcissistic and antisocial features. The CO stated that the psychologist's report found that the applicant's disorder had existed prior to his enlistment in the Coast Guard and that this condition would likely result in "poor work performance and little if any behavior change." The CO stated that according to the report, there was no evidence of a "mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder as defined by [military regulations] to warrant disposition through military medical channels," and therefore, no medical board was required prior to discharge.

In his letter to the applicant, the CO informed the applicant that he had the right to submit a statement on his behalf. The applicant replied to the CO's letter in a memorandum dated October 19, 1992, stating that he did not wish to submit a statement on his behalf. In his letter, the applicant stated he did not object to being discharged. He also asked the Coast Guard to discharge him as soon as possible.

Applicant's Medical Record

The applicant's medical record contains numerous entries referring to the impairment of his performance as a result of family difficulties, domestic violence, and mental distress. The medical record lists several occasions when the applicant was counseled regarding his behavioral problems. On June 19, 1992, the applicant was diagnosed by a military mental health counselor as having a problem with "situational anger." On June 20, 1992, the applicant's CO requested that he be admitted for counseling because he was "tearful and unable to function on the job." The attending psychologist on this date diagnosed the applicant as having an "adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features."

On July 2, 1992, the applicant was admitted again for psychological tests. The reviewing psychologist diagnosed the applicant as having an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional traits and as having narcissistic personality traits. On September 10, 1992, the applicant was evaluated by a military psychologist and diagnosed as having narcissistic and antisocial personality features, and found to be suffering from anxiety. On September 16, 1992, the applicant received a physical examination which noted that he had been in counseling for approximately eight months for marital problems, parenting, and anger management.

In an evaluation of the applicant dated October 5, 1992, the reviewing psychologist reported on the results of numerous psychological tests the applicant had undergone at the request of the CO. The psychologist diagnosed the applicant as having subclinical anxiety and depressive symptoms and passive-aggressive, avoidant, and anti-social personality features. The psychologist determined that the applicant was "temperamentally and emotionally unsuited for continued service in the United States Coast Guard." He recommended prompt separation of the applicant from the service.

On November 12, 1992, the applicant was admitted to a military infirmary "due to unstability," according to the reviewing counselor's report. The counselor's assessment after examining and counseling the applicant was that he had suicidal thoughts and required further treatment. He was released from the infirmary on November 16, 1992.

Applicant's Military Record

The applicant's military record contains two police reports dated March 25, 1992 and September 8, 1992, which document the applicant's arrest for battery and domestic violence. After the first domestic violence incident, the applicant was placed on three months probation, ordered not to have violent contact with his wife, and ordered to attend 48 hours of family, drug and alcohol therapy.

After the second incident of domestic violence, the applicant was placed on 12 months probation under the supervision of a probation officer, ordered to remain on base under Coast Guard supervision, and ordered not to make contact with his wife except under the direction of the probation officer.

Proceedings of the Discharge Review Board

The applicant's record also contains his appeal to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) which he submitted on February 2, 1994, and the DRB's subsequent decision in his case. The applicant's appeal to the DRB listed the same issues for review that he presented to the BCMR. In support of his application, the applicant submitted letters written on his behalf by a Senior Chief Boatswain's Mate (BMCS) who had been his supervisor, and a Captain in the Coast Guard Reserve.

The supervisor, who had worked with the applicant for approximately 11 months, stated that the applicant performed well in an environment that entailed long workdays and stressful hours. The supervisor mentioned that the applicant's family problems caused the applicant to miss work frequently, and therefore resulted in his having to do extra duty on weekends. Both the supervisor and the captain asserted that the applicant was a hard and capable worker and conducted himself professionally while in service.

In its review of the applicant's case, the DRB asserted that it took into consideration not only the applicant's submissions, but also all the documents in the applicant's military and medical record, submissions from the applicant's commanding officer, and other supporting documentation. The DRB determined, after a thorough review of the applicant's record and materials, that the discharge by reason of unsuitability was "appropriate, equitable and proper." The DRB unanimously voted not to change the applicant's discharge or its terms.

Views of the Coast Guard

On April 25, 1995, the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion in which it recommended that the application be denied. In its opinion, the Coast Guard stated that because the applicant had been diagnosed as having a personality disorder, he had been appropriately discharged in accordance with the terms of Article 12-B-16. The Service stated that the applicant had been examined by a competent medical authority which determined that his disorder was of a "persistent or permanent nature." The Coast Guard said that because of the determination that the applicant's condition was permanent, "prompt administrative separation" was recommended.

The Coast Guard also stated that under Article 12-B-16, Commandant Instruction M1900.4C, the codes issued on a separated member's DD Form 214 are a JMB separation code and an RE-4 or RE-3G reenlistment code. A JMB separation code is issued under Article 12-B-16 when the member is diagnosed with a non-curative personality disorder. The Service stated that because of the permanent nature of the applicant's personality disorder, he was issued the JMB separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. The Service said that an RE-3G separation code is applicable only if the "condition is no longer present." The Coast Guard stated that based upon the diagnosis of the medical authority and the material in the applicant's record, the JMB separation code and RE-4 reenlistment codes were correctly assigned.

Additionally, in a letter dated September 30, 1994, the Coast Guard noted that the Commandant had approved the decision of the DRB to have the applicant's discharge stand as issued. The Coast Guard stated that the applicant had presented "no new information regarding his case that was not previously considered by the DRB," and therefore, it concurred with the "thorough evaluation of the circumstances of the member's separation conducted by the DRB."

Response of the Applicant

On June 1, 1995, the applicant submitted a response to the Coast Guard's views. In his statement, the applicant asserted that the Coast Guard erred in failing to consult his private marriage counselor who had been counseling him and his wife for approximately six months. The applicant asserted that the counselor's statement addressed a "much broader range of issues contributing to [his] behavior." The applicant stated that he had signed "all releases necessary to allow [the counselor's] interaction with the Coast Guard, to include reporting of her findings," and that the Coast Guard erred in failing to obtain the counselor's "relevant input" before deciding to discharge him.

The applicant asserted that the "Coast Guard erroneously linked [his behavioral problems] to [him] and [his] Coast Guard duty rather than to severe extenuating family circumstances." The applicant further asserted that by virtue of his divorce in February 1993, the circumstances which led to his discharge have been removed and therefore, he should no longer have to suffer from the "negative effect of an `Unsuitability' discharge for the rest of his life based upon the Coast Guard's error and a set of circumstances which no longer exist."

The applicant stated that he signed the statement regarding the acknowledgment of his discharge and declined to submit a statement on his behalf because he was in a poor state of mind at the time. He asserted that when he submitted that document, it was possible that he did not fully understand the significance of signing the statement because at that time he was preoccupied with his family problems.

The applicant asked the BCMR to rescind the unsuitability discharge and reissue his DD Form 214 with a new separation code and "convenience of the government" or "hardship" as the narrative reason for separation. He also asked to be reinstated as a seaman in the Coast Guard.

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III), the American Psychiatric Association (APA) states that an individual is suffering from a personality disorder when his or her personality traits are "inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress . . . ." Personality traits are defined in the DSM-III as "patterns of receiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself, and are exhibited in a wide range of important social and personal contexts." The DSM-III states that a diagnosis of a personality disorder should only be made when the characteristics of that personality disorder "are typical of the individual's long-term functioning and are not limited to discrete episodes of illness."

There are several types of personality disorders and features defined in the DSM-III, including the narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, and passive-aggressive personality disorder. The DSM-III states that a person diagnosed with a personality disorder may experience disturbances of the mind, which could involve depression or anxiety. The DSM-III also states that the individual suffering from personality disorders would experience marked impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The BCMR makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis of the submissions of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the applicant's military record, and applicable law:

1. The BCMR has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United States Code. The application is timely.

2. The applicant asked the BCMR to upgrade his discharge by changing the JMB separation code on his DD Form 214 to a KDH or a KND separation code and by changing his RE-4 reenlistment code to an RE-3H or an RE-3D reenlistment code.

3. While in the Coast Guard, the applicant was seen by several military psychologists and mental health counselors for evaluation following incidents of violent behavior, depression, and domestic violence. After an October 1992 examination by a licensed military psychologist, the applicant was diagnosed as having a personality disorder with narcissistic and antisocial features. The psychologist determined that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service and recommended immediate separation. The Coast Guard based its decision to discharge the applicant by reason of "unsuitability" on the recommendation of the psychologist and the applicant's military and medical records.

4. The applicant had been diagnosed on three separate occasions as having personality disorders. On July 2, 1992 and September 10, 1992, the applicant had been diagnosed as having narcissistic personality traits. On September 10, 1992, the applicant was also diagnosed as having antisocial personality features. On October 5, 1992, the applicant was diagnosed as having avoidant, anti-social, and passive-aggressive personality features.

5. Article 12-B-16 (a) and (b) of the Personnel Manual states that in the event that it has been determined by a medical authority that a member suffers from a personality disorder, discharge by reason of unsuitability may be directed by the Commandant. While the applicant attributed his unsatisfactory behavior on active duty to marital problems and his wife's mental instability, it is evident from the entries in the applicant's record and the medical diagnoses that he suffers from personality disorders. Because of the magnitude of the behavioral problems the applicant was experiencing, he was properly processed for immediate discharge by his CO, and deemed ineligible to reenlist.

6. The applicant's case was reviewed by a competent medical authority which found that he suffered from a non-curative personality disorder which made him unsuitable for military service. This determination was based on the psychologist's analysis of the applicant's symptoms and his history of behavioral problems. The psychologist's diagnoses of the applicant comply with the definitions of such personality disorders contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III). The applicant has failed to demonstrate that this psychological assessment was erroneous.

7. The applicant's claim that the Coast Guard erred in failing to consult his private counselor is without merit. According to Article 12-B-16(d) and (h), the procedure for discharge by reason of unsuitability requires that the applicant receive a physical examination by a medical authority, be informed in writing of the terms of his discharge, be afforded the opportunity to submit a statement on his behalf, and be informed of his right to consult with an attorney. In the memorandum to his CO dated October 19, 1992, the applicant stated that he did not object to the terms of his discharge and that his endorsement of the discharge contained the only statements he wished to make in his case. The Coast Guard was under no obligation to consult with the applicant's private counselor before deciding to discharge the applicant. The Service followed all relevant procedures for a discharge by reason of unsuitability and the applicant was processed for such discharge accordingly.

8. Moreover, in her statement, the applicant's marriage counselor stated that she did not dispute the findings of the military psychologist reviewing the applicant's case. The counselor stated that she regretted that the Coast Guard made the decision to discharge the applicant without consulting her. The counselor introduced no medical evidence to show that the applicant was misdiagnosed. The counselor's statement does not invalidate the findings of the military psychologist, and therefore, does not prove any error on his part or on the part of the Coast Guard.

9. The applicant also argued that he was not informed of his right to a medical board prior to discharge. Article 12-B-16(h) states that a medical board should be convened in the event a mental or psychiatric defect is detected. In his October 5, 1992 report of his evaluation of the applicant, the military psychologist stated that he found no evidence of a mental defect or psychiatric illness affecting the applicant, and therefore, no medical board was required.

10. The terms of eligibility for a hardship or dependency discharge are well outlined in Article 12-D-3 of the Personnel Manual. The final decision of whether to grant that discharge rests with the Commandant. The applicant neither requested nor was he eligible for a dependency or hardship discharge under Article 12-D-3. There is no documentation in the applicant's record to support his claim that he inquired about his eligibility for discharge under Article 12-D-3, or that he began the application procedures for that type of discharge.

11. The letters the applicant submitted on his behalf written by the captain and the supervisor are insufficient evidence to negate the medical finding of a personality disorder or the applicant's discharge on that basis. The captain's and supervisor's evaluations of the applicant can not be substituted for the evaluation of the applicant by a trained psychologist.

12. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that his previous behavioral problems no longer exist. The applicant also has failed to show that these behavioral problems would not recur if he were to return to military service. There has been no evidence or statement submitted from a licensed psychologist on behalf of the applicant which rebuts the military medical diagnoses made in the applicant's case. There has been no evidence to show that the diagnoses of the applicant were erroneous, and therefore, the allegation that the terms of the applicant's discharge were unjust is without merit. The applicant's record and history of behavioral problems make him ineligible to be reinstated into military service.

13. Based upon a thorough review of the applicant's record and the submissions of the applicant, the Board has determined that the Coast Guard did not err in discharging the applicant by reason of unsuitability. Therefore, the application should be denied.

The application for correction of the military record of, is denied.

Marina C. Appleton

John A. Kern

Betsy L. Wolf