Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD05-00702

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00702

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050308.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050908.  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of weight control failure.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and an attached letter to the Board:

“My only blemish was lack of Progress on the weight control Program.

Dear, Sir or Madam

I was separated from the United States Marine Corps with 3 years and 4 months.  My type of separation was Discharge, with a Character of Service General {Under Honorable Conditions,} Separation Code HCRI, Reentry Code RE-3P, and Narrative reason for Separation Weight Control Failure

•	Request my Character of Service be changed to Honorable Conditions.

I did loose weight, but was unsuccessful in losing the desired weight goal set in the Marine Corps weight standard.  I passed the Physical Fitness Test, Marksmanship Training and my Proficiency and Conduct marks throughout my enlistment were other than unsatisfactory per the IRAM MCO P1070.12.

The only blemish in my career was the lack of progress in the weight control program.  I believe my mitigating circumstance was my medical condition after I gave birth.  I used physical training, diet, and kept very active but did not loose the desired weight but hit a proverbial wall.  Medical personnel told me that my height {4’11”}, a chemical imbalance and the pregnancy were the primary contributor to my inability to meet the weight standard.

I had planned to make the Marine Corps a career but now I would like to upgrade my discharge so that I can pursue another profession.  An honorable discharge is required to pursue college using the Montgomery G.I. Bill that I contributed $1,200.00 too.

Sincerely,
[signed]
O_ F-O_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, were considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Letter from Applicant, dtd February 11, 2005
Character reference, dtd February 20, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	2000328 - 2000416		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000417		Date of Discharge:  20030808

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    03  03  22
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  40

Highest Rank:  LCpl				MOS:  3051

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NA*				Conduct:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Certificate of Appreciation, Rifle Marksman Badge

*Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000328:	Applicant’s entry height and weight were 59-3/4 inches and 125 pounds.  [Note: Maximum weight for 60 inches is 128 pounds.]

020204:	Applicant gave birth to son.

021106:	2d Radio Battalion BAS Admin: Applicant evaluated for inclusion in body composition program [Ht: 59 inches, Wt: 169 pounds, BF: 40% (Max Wt 124 pounds)].  Labs were ordered.  Applicant informed to follow up with BAS one day after labs work was completed.

021118:	Counseling: Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl due to assignment to the Battalion Body Composition Program.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

021118:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Assignment to the Marine Corps Body Composition Program (current wt 168 lbs; max wt by MCO 6100.12 is 124).).  Until Applicant has been taken off the Body Composition Program, Applicant will not be recommended for promotion.  Applicant was being assigned to the Company Remedial Physical Conditioning Program.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

021121:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unavailable for worldwide assignment due to failure to establish a childcare plan per MCO 1730.13.).  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

021216:	Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital, Emergency Department, Nursing Record: Applicant took ten 800mg Motrin at 0200.  Applicant stated that she wanted to die at the time and was taken to the Mental Health Clinic.

021216:	Mental Health Outpatient Consultation: Evaluated for suicidal gesture.  Diagnoses:  AXIS I: Partner relational problems.  AXIS II: None.  AXIS III: Status post-suicidal gesture.  AXIS IV: Military stressors.  AXIS V: Current global assessment of functioning: 60.
Plan: Applicant returned to duty.  Instructed to follow-up on 021217 at 1300 or sooner if necessary.

030205:	Company NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs):
	Specification 1: On or about 0830, 29 Jan 03, SNM did knowingly violate Base Order P5560.2K by operating a vehicle aboard base while her driving privileges were revoked.
	Specification 2: Not found in service record.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  Restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

030311:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Marine Corps BCP.  Due to insufficient effort, Applicant has not met weight/body fat reduction goals as prescribed by the medical officer.).  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

030518:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsuitability for military service due to weight control failure.  Specifically, failed to meet the Marine Corps’ body composition standards.).  Advised being processed for administrative discharge action.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

030807:	Separation Physical Examination: Applicant physically fit for separation. Height: 59 inches.  Weight: 176 pounds.  Diagnosis: (1) Pes planus  (2) Overweight.

030807:	Commanding Officer, 2d Radio Battalion requested expedited version of the Pre-Separation Brief and TAP workshop due to being separated with an administrative discharge from the Marine Corps on 030808.

030808:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of weight control failure, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

Service Record Book did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030808 by reason of weight control failure (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant contends that her service characterization of general (under honorable conditions) is inappropriate because she was losing weight.  There is irrefutable evidence in the Applicant’s records that show she was not meeting her weight loss goals.  The Applicant was assigned to the Marine Corps Body Composition Program on 20021118 and was counseled on 20030311 for not meeting the reduction goals as prescribed by the medical officer.  Further, on 20030518 (six months after being assigned to the program), the Applicant was counseled for not makings satisfactory progress and not returning to her prescribed weight and body fat standards.  The Board found no impropriety in these entries, and therefore no relief is granted on this basis. 

The Applicant further contends that her discharge was improper because medical personnel told her that her height, a chemical imbalance, and pregnancy played a role in her being overweight.  The Applicant’s records show that an appropriately credentialed health care provider evaluated her on 20021106 before being assigned to the body composition program.  The Board found no medical reason in the available records that would prevent her from returning to the prescribed weight and body fat standards.  A claim of impropriety without providing any verifiable documents is insufficient to warrant a discharge upgrade.  The Board presumed regularity in the discharge process; therefore, relief is denied. 

The Applicant states that her service was only blemished by lack of progress on the weight control program, and so she should be granted an upgrade to honorable.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions.  Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s performance and conduct during her time in the Marine Corps was not honorable.  Indeed, the Applicant’s records contain:
•	Nonjudicial punishment proceedings on 20030205 for violation of UCMJ Article 92 Failure to obey order or regulation;
•	Counseling entry on 20021118 not recommending promotion due to assignment to the Battalion Body Composition Program;
•	Counseling entry on 20021121 for making yourself unavailable for worldwide assignment due to failure to establish a required childcare plan; and
•	Retention warning entry on 20030311 for deficiencies in performance and conduct concerning unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Body Composition Program due to insufficient effort.
Clearly, the Applicant’s performance and conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief is denied.

The Applicant desires a discharge upgrade to honorable to pursue another profession and use the Montgomery G.I. Bill.  The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  These issues do not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Therefore relief on this basis is denied.

The following is provided for the Applicant’s edification.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to challenge the propriety or equity of the discharge.  Also, while there is no law or regulation, which provides that a discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the Marine Corps, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  The Applicant provided one character reference for consideration.  The Applicant is advised that her efforts need to be more encompassing to include proof of verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  At this time, there is not sufficient post service documentation on which to consider an upgrade.  And so, no relief is granted on this basis.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to her discharge at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6215, WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 01 September 2001 until Present.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy 	Council of Review 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.