Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD01-00661

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-Cpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00661

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010416, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011018.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to HONORABLE/Weight Control Failure.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   USMC		850730 - 881215	HON
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		840808 - 850729	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  881216		Date of Discharge:  920714

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  06  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.5 (8)			Conduct:  4.3 (8)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, NDSM, SASM with 2 Stars, GCM (2), KLM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Weight Control Failure - involuntary discharge directed by established directive (with board entitlement), authority:  ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93].

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

881216:	Applicant reenlisted for 4 years.

900228:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion for the months of April, May, June 1990 because of military appearance.

900530:	Appropriately Credentials Health Care Provider found applicant's overweight condition is not due to a pathological disorder.  Applicant assigned to the weight control/military appearance program.

901121:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Sergeant for the months of January, February, March 1991 because of being assigned to weight control.

910819:	Weight Control/Military Appearance program suspended due to operations Desert Storm/Shield from 2 Aug 90 through April 1991.

920129:	Applicant reevaluated by Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider and found weight condition not due to a pathological disorder.

920602:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general).  The factual basis for the recommendation was your failure to conform to weight standards as evidenced by your body weight of 215 pounds on 2 April 1992.

920603:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

920604:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).  The factual basis for the recommendation was your failure to conform to weight standards as evidenced by your body weight of 215 pounds on 2 April 1992.

920611:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact. 

920615:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 1^st Force Service Support Group] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance – Failure to conform to weight standards.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920714 under honorable conditions (general) due to weight control failure (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but not equitable (C and D).

The Board found the applicant’s discharge was based solely on his failure to meet height/weight standards, and that his performance and conduct otherwise were of a creditable nature.  Therefore, the Board found an inequity in that the applicant’s characterization of service should have been based upon his rank, time in service and proficiency/conduct markings (A).  The applicant’s average proficiency and conduct markings were 4.5 and 4.3 respectively.  There was no documentation of any misconduct in the applicant’s record.  Therefore, the applicant’s characterization of service is upgraded to HONORABLE.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93] revised enlisted separation policy for weight control failure.  It cancelled paragraph 6206.1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls10.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A1300/A0100/A9500/