DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2004-127 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on May  26, 2004,  upon  receipt  of the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  10,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by setting aside his 
involuntary  discharge  for  weight  noncompliance  and  reinstating  him  into  the  Coast 
Guard Reserve, although he was discharged from the regular Coast Guard. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that Coast Guard committed an error by discharging him 
due to weight control failure, without first assigning him a probationary period to lose 
the  weight.  He  alleged  that  he  was  never  placed  on  probation  as  required  by 
(COMDTINST) M1020.8D.  The applicant argued that the maximum allowable weight 
(MAW)  used  in  his  December  7,  2002,  weight  screening  was  erroneous.    He  further 
alleged  that  if  his  correct  MAW  had  been  used,  he  would  not  have  been  subject  to 
involuntary discharge but would have been placed on weight probation.   
 

 
According to Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M1020.8D, with a height 
of 67 inches and a wrist size of 7 1/2 inches, the applicant's MAW was 193 pounds and 
his  maximum  allowable  fat  (MAF)  was  27%.      The  applicant  argued  that  on  June  20, 
2001,  he  was  assigned  a  new  MAW  of  225  pounds,  which  should  have  been  used  on 
December 7, 2002, rather than 193 pounds.  He stated that if 225 pounds had been used 
as his MAW, he would have been only 20  pounds overweight in December 2002 and 
eligible for a 36-week probationary period to lose the excess weight.  However based on 
a  193-pound  MAW,  the  applicant  was  found  to  be  52  pounds  overweight  with  39% 
body fat.  Therefore, the applicant was processed for discharge rather than for probation 
because  it  would  have  taken  more  than  the  allowed  36-week  probationary  period  for 
the  applicant  to  lose  all  the  excess  weight  and  body  fat  based  on  the  calculation 
contained in the regulation that required a member to lose one pound per week and/or 
1% body fat per month. 
 
 
The applicant submitted a statement entitled "summary of Coast Guard Career."  
He stated that he served during the first Gulf war and that he was recalled immediately 
after September 11, 2001.  He also wrote of alleged mistreatment.  He claimed that he 
was ordered to refer himself for a psychiatric examination.  He further claimed that a 
petty  officer  first  class  (PO1)  had  harassed  him  for  about  a  year.    According  to  the 
applicant  the  PO1  stated  at  one  point  "aren't  you  ashamed  to  wear  that  achievement 
ribbon? You're and old man and don't deserve it.  Don't worry I will do everything to 
make sure you are not integrated and thrown out of the Coast Guard."  The applicant 
stated that he wrote a complaint against the PO1, which resulted in his removal from 
the  public  affairs  office.    He  stated  that  he  was  sent  to  another  unit,  where  a  chief 
warrant officer, a senior chief petty officer and a petty officer placed him in a room and 
yelled and screamed all sort of profanity at him.  He stated he was treated as a leper.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On May 23, 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  

 
 
 
 
On January 27, 1996, an administrative remarks page (page 7) was entered in the 
applicant's record documenting that the applicant was 73 pounds overweight with 35% 
body  fat.    The  applicant  was  given  until  June  22,  1997  to  reduce  his  weight  to  197 
pounds  and  his  body  fat  to  27%.    The  entry  advised  the  applicant  that  if  he  failed  to 
bring his weight and body fat into compliance by June 22, 1997, he would be transferred 
to the individual ready reserve (IRR). 
 
 
On  June  4,  1996,  a  page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant's  record  documenting  a 
mark of 2 in the Health and Well-Being category on his performance evaluation for the 
period ending May 31, 1996.  The page 7 also states that the applicant reported for duty 
approximately 70 pounds over his MAW.  
 

In June 2001, the applicant reentered the Selected Reserve after a number of years 

 
in the IRR, according to his CO.   
 
On June 20, 2001, a page 7, acknowledged by the applicant, was entered into his 
 
record stating that he was in compliance with his maximum allowable weight/body fat 
standard.    The  entry  noted  that  the  applicant  was  68  inches  tall.    The  entry  further 
stated the following: 
 

An  April  22,  2002,  message  from  CGPC  approved  the  applicant's  request  for 

Your age is 48 and your percent body fat is 22% based on a Bioelectrical 
Impedence  Analysis  conducted  by  Fitness  Consultant  Personal  Training 
Center on 20 June 01 and approved by ISC Boston medical on 5 July 01.  In 
accordance  with  COMDTINST  M1020.8  (series),  you  are  assigned  a 
maximum  allowable  weight  for  screening  purposes  of  225  (pounds).  
Should you exceed this maximum allowable weight in the future, you will 
be required to complete a body fat determination.   
 
 
According to the applicant and his then-supervisor, the applicant began serving 
a period of extended active duty, in the fall of 2001. In the spring of 2002, the applicant 
applied  for  integration  into  the  regular  Coast  Guard.    In  a  March  28,  2002,  letter 
supporting  the  applicant's  request  for  integration,  the  then-supervisor  wrote  that  the 
applicant volunteered for recall and had been on extended active duty since September 
11, 2001.   
 
 
integration provided he was fully qualified.   
 
 
 
 
On August 1, 2002, the applicant was screened for weight compliance.  Based on 
a height of 66.5 inches, a wrist size of 7 3/4 inches, and a weight of 221 pounds, he was 
found  to  be  26  pounds  over  weight.    Therefore,  he  was  required  to  have  a  body  fat 
measurement.  He was determined to have 39% body fat, which meant that he exceeded 
his  allowable  body  fat  by  12%.    The  applicant's  command  attempted  to  place  him  on 
weight probation by ordering him to lose the weight and fat by May 1, 2003.  According 
to his CO, the probationary period was never perfected (discussed below).   
 
 
On  December  7,  2002,  the  applicant  underwent  another  weight  screening.    He 
was  measured  as  being  67  inches  tall,  having  a  7  1/2  inch  wrist  size,  weighing  245 
pounds, and having 39% body fat.   The applicant was advised in a page 7 that he was 
considered to be 52 pounds over weight.  He was further informed, "In accordance with 
allowable weight standards for Coast Guard military personnel  . . . your probationary 
period would require 36 weeks or more, therefore you are hereby notified that, instead 
of probation, you will be recommended for separation." 

On July 1, 2002, the applicant enlisted in the regular Coast Guard for four years. 

 
 
On January 31, 2003, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) requested that the 
applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard because the applicant's excessive weight 
and  body  fat  would  require  a  probationary  period  longer  than  36  weeks.    The  CO 
explained that the attempt to place the applicant on weight probation in August 2002 
was  ineffective  for  two  reasons.    (1)  The  applicant  should  not  have  been  subject  to  a 
body fat determination because he did not exceed his screening weigh of 225 pounds.  
(2)  The  command  failed  to  obtain  a  medical  examination  of  the  applicant  prior  to 
attempting  to  place  him  on  probation.    However,  the  CO  stated  the  applicant's 
acknowledgement of the August 1, 2002 page 7 entry, as well as counseling from a chief 
warrant officer (CWO) placed the applicant on notice to lose weight not gain it.   
 
 
The CO stated that because the applicant appeared to be gaining weight, he was 
weighed on December 7, 2002.  The CO stated that his request for discharge was based 
on  the  results  of  the  December  2002  screening.    The  CO  stated  that  there  was  no 
underlying  medical  condition  or  abnormal  metabolic  functions  that  prevented  the 
applicant from losing weight.   
 
 
The  CO  attached  a  statement  from  a  CWO  who  reported  to  the  unit  in  late 
August  2002  to  his  request  for  the  applicant's  discharge.    The  CWO  stated  that  in 
September  2002  he  received  an  unsigned  page  7  stating  that  the  applicant  was  on 
weight probation, but that he was not able to learn more about the probation.  He stated 
that  on  November  20,  2002,  he  discovered  a  local  August  1,  2002  page  7  with  the 
applicant's then-supervisor's signature placing the applicant on weight probation.  He 
stated that on November 21, 2002, the applicant agreed to sign the August 1, 2002 page 
7.    The  CWO  stated,  "I  expressed  that  this  was  an  advisory  notifying  him  that  he 
exceeded  his  maximum  allowable  weight,  that  he  was  given  time  to  lose  the  excess 
weight, and that if he did not, he was subject to discharge. "  The CWO stated that he 
counseled the applicant on a weekly basis about diet and exercise.   The CWO further 
stated the following: 
 

On 4 Dec 2002, I asked [the applicant] to report to the clinic to measure his 
progress  to  lose  weight.    I  hoped  that  if  he  improved  on  his  1  Aug 
screening, it would have given him additional motivation to continue his 
program.  If it showed an increase from  Aug 1, it would have validated 
my  suspicion  that  he  did  very  little  to  lose  the  weight.    He  came  in  52 
pounds overweight, double the excess weight from the 1 Aug screening.  
Immediately  following  this  screening  [the  applicant]  sent  me  an  email 
admitting that he hadn't been exercising, and that he would take then take 
my advice more seriously.  

 
 
On  January  13,  2003,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  objecting  to  his 
discharge.    He  stated  that  on  July  16,  2001  he  was  given  a  weight  waiver  and  that 

subsequent  to  September  11,  2001,  he  was  approved  for  integration  into  the  regular 
Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  further  denied  that  he  had  ever  been  counseled  on  a 
weight  program,  but  that  he  had  been  told  to  diet  and  exercise.    He  alleged  that  a 
personality conflict with a CWO was relevant to his weight issue. 
 

 
On  March  11,  2003,  a  page  7  advised  that  applicant  that  he  could  apply  for 
reenlistment to his former rate provided that he was within the MAW, met appearance 
standards, and had been discharged for at least six but not more than twelve months. 
 
 
On  March  12,  2003,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard  due  to  weight  control  failure,  with  a  JCR  separation  code,  and  a  RE-3F 
reenlistment code. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 20, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  He stated that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome 
the presumption of regularity afforded to the Coast Guard.  He stated, citing Arens v. 
United  States,  969 F.2d  1034,  1037  (D.C.  Cir.  1992),  that  absent  strong  evidence  to the 
contrary, government officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, 
lawfully, and in good faith.   
 
TJAG acknowledged that the August 1, 2002 page 7 (attempted probation) was 
 
made in error, but that the error was not relevant to the relief sought by the applicant.  
He  argued  that  the  applicant  was  properly  separated  based  on  the  weight  screening 
conducted on December 7, 2002.  He further stated that the applicant was not entitled to 
a  probationary  period  after  the  December  7,  2002  screening  because  the  probationary 
period that would have been required would have exceeded the 36 weeks allotted by 
the instruction.  
  
 
TJAG  stated  that  although  the  August  1,  2002  page  7  was  prepared  in  error,  it 
should remain in the applicant's record.  TJAG stated that the page 7 is referenced and 
discussed in the CO's request for discharge and its removal would cause confusion in 
the record.   
 
 
 
TJAG  attached  a  memorandum  from  Commander  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command  (CGPC)  as  Enclosure  (1)  and  asked  the  Board  to  accept  it  as  part  of  the 
advisory  opinion.    CGPC  recommended  that  the  applicant's  request  be  denied  and 
offered the following comments in support of his recommendation: 
 

1.  [T]he [MAW] standards are based on a person's age, height and frame 
size.    This  program  was  established  to  contribute  to  the  fitness  for  duty 

and appearance of it members.  To meet our operational challenges as part 
of the Armed Services, all members must be fit for duty and appear so in 
uniform. 
 
2.  The applicant's allegation that the Coast Guard violated COMDTINST 
M1020.8D by not placing him on probation is in error. . . . [T]he applicant, 
upon determination that his body fat was within standards, was assigned 
a screening weight on June 20, 2001 . . . equal to his weight when the body 
fat determination was made.  This did not establish a new [MAW].  The 
applicant's  MAW  for  screening  purposes  was  established  to  prevent  the 
applicant  from  having  to  perform  additional  body  fat  determinations  as 
long as he did not gain additional weight.  [However] if he exceeded the 
screening weight, he would be screened for a new body fat determination.  
The applicant acknowledged on the June 20, 2001 page 7 that he was given 
the opportunity to review COMDTINST M1020.8D and fully understood 
that if determined to be over fat after being found to be over his screening 
weight,  he  would  be  placed  on  probation  IAW  [in  accordance  with]  the 
standards  outlined  in  Article  3.C.  with  calculations  based  upon  his 
original MAW weight, not his screening weight.  
 
3. [I]t was acknowledged "there were a number of aspects that make [the 
August  1,  2002  page  7]  and  the  assigned  probationary  period  incorrect" 
and that the applicant was not over his MAW for screening purposes that 
was  established  in  June  2001.    [The  August  1,  2002  page  7]  should  be 
considered void and invalid.  At the point the applicant was allowed to be 
below  his  MAW  for  screening  purposes,  no  further  actions  should  have 
been taken upon the applicant.     
 
4.  An evaluation of the applicant's weight was performed on December 7, 
2002,  because  the  applicant  appeared  to  be  gaining  weight.    This 
observation, we can presume, would have been made even in the absence 
of  the  August  1,  2002,  page  7.    Since  the  applicant  served  in  the  Public 
Affairs  Detachment  and  had  regular  interaction  with  the  public,  it  is 
expected that he would be evaluated upon such an observation.  It was in 
this  evaluation  that  the  applicant  was  found  to  weigh  245  pounds  (52 
pounds above his maximum of 193) with a body fat of 39% (12% above his 
maximum  of  27%)and  established  the  basis  for  his  discharge.    The 
applicant was then referred for a medical evaluation that indicated there 
was  no  underlying  medical  condition  causing  the  applicant's  excess 
weight  or  body  fat.    Since  he  exceeded  his  [MAW]  and  maximum 
allowable fat to the point by which it would take more than 36 weeks to be 
within standards, he was processed for separation without a probationary 
period in accordance with Coast Guard policy. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  October  14,  2004,  the  BCMR  received  the  applicant's  reply  to  the  advisory 
 
opinion.  The applicant disagreed that the August 1, 2002, page 7 was irrelevant to his 
case.    He  implies  that  the  Coast  Guard  argued  that  the  August  1,  2002  page  7  was 
irrelevant because it did not help their case.  The applicant argued that the Coast Guard 
believes  it  is  relevant  because  it  shows  the  Coast  Guard's  failure  to  follow  the 
requirements  of  the  regulation  when  placing  him  on  probation.    He  asserted  that  the 
Coast  Guard's  failure  in  this  regard  denied  him  the  opportunity  for  a  36-week 
probationary  period.  "I  was  never  allowed  as  per  rules  and  regulations  to  have  36 
weeks to be counseled and lose weight."  
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  never  counseled,  sent  to  a  corpsman,  or  told 
 
about  a  weight  program  that  he  should  follow.    He  stated,  "While  covering  a  story  I 
discovered a nutritionist who put me on a program of diet and exercise.  I was doing 
well, but not given a chance, because [a] CWO . . . [was] clairvoyant and [knew] how 
much weight I would lose in 36 weeks."  In subsequent correspondence, he argued that 
under the regulation, an overweight person should receive diet counseling.   
 
 
The  applicant  commented  how  strange  it  was  that  he  was  awarded  an 
Achievement Medal with Operational Distinguishing Device and a few weeks later the 
same people who praised him placed him in a room and verbally abused him.  
 
 
The applicant also submitted copies of several articles that he wrote for the Coast 
Guard, a copy of the citation accompanying the Transportation 9-11 Ribbon presented 
to him by the Secretary, and a copy of the last page of his performance evaluation for 
the period ending June 27, 2002. On the evaluation in the Professional Qualities factor, 
he received marks 7 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest) in the loyalty and 
respecting others categories.   A June 11, 2002, page 7 documents and justifies the 7s in 
these areas. 
 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Allowable Weight Standards for Coast Guard Personnel (COMDTISNT M1020.8D)  
 
 
MAW as follows: 
 

Article  1.A.  defines  MAW,  maximum  percent  body  fat  (MAF),  and  Screening 

[MAW].  [MAW] permitted for a member based upon height, frame size 
and  gender.    If  this  weight  is  exceeded,  the  member  is  referred  for  a 

percent body fat determination.   Ordinarily, MAW is well above ideal or 
healthy  weight  norms    .  .  .  and  members  should  strive  to  attain  and 
maintain a body weight below their MAW.  
 
Maximum Percent Body Fat.  Maximum body fat permitted for a member 
based upon gender and age  . . .  
 
Screening [MAW]. A screening weight is given to a member who exceeds 
his  or  her  MAW  but  has  been  determined  to  be  within  his  or  her 
maximum  body  fat.    It  assumes  that  as  long  as  the  member's  weight 
remains  below  his  or  her  screening  weight,  he  or  she  is  still  within 
maximum percent body fat.  This removes the need to recalculate body fat 
each time he or she is found to exceed MAW. 

 
 
Article  2.B.  states  that  all  military  personnel  shall  be  screened  against  the 
maximum  weight  standards  at  least  annually  and  prior  to  certain  personnel  actions, 
such  as  the  assignment  of  reservists  to  long-term  active  duty  and  to  high  visibility 
assignments.  This Article further provides for screenings as necessary at the discretion 
of the CO.   
 

Article  3.B.  provides  that  all  overweight  members  who  exceed  the  MAF 
standards  shall  be  referred  to  a  medical  facility  to  receive  counseling  on  proper 
nutrition and methods to reduce the excess body fat.   
 

Article 3.C. states that members exceeding their weight and fat standards shall be 
placed  on  probation  to  lose  the  excess  weight  and  fat.  Also  it  stated  that  the 
probationary 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.  It  further  states  that  if  the  probationary  period  would  require 
more than 36 weeks, the member is to be discharged.   
 

Article 4.c. is entitled "Assigning a New Maximum Weight."  It provides for the 

following: 
 

Some  members'  physical  makeup,  primarily  due  to  high  muscle  mass, 
puts  him  or  her  in  an  overweight  category  even  though  their  body  fat 
percentage is within limits.  In each case such as this, upon determination 
that  the  member's  body  fat  is  within  standards,  the  member  will  be 
assigned a screening weight equal to the member's weight when the body 
fat  determination  is  made.    This  does  not  establish  a  new  MAW.    It  is 
designed  to  avoid  requiring  the  member  to  have  additional  body  fat 
determinations as long as he or she does not gain additional weight  . . . If 
the member exceeds the screening weight, he or she will be screened for a 

new body fat determination.  If determined to be over fat, he or she shall 
be  placed  on  probation  IAW  the  standards  outlined  in  Article  3.C.  with 
calculations  based  upon  the  member's  original  MAW,  not  his  or  her 
screening weight. [Emphasis added.]  

 

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  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  was  discharged  as  a  result  of  a  December  2002  weight 
screening that found him to be 52 pounds over his MAW of 193 pounds and 12% over 
his  body  fat  of  27%.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  that  the  Coast  Guard  violated  the 
regulation  by  using  his  original  MAW  of  193  pounds  rather  than  the  225-pound 
screening MAW to determine his excess weight in December 2002.  In accordance with 
the  regulation,  on  June  20,  2001,  the  applicant  was  given  a  screening  MAW  of  225 
pounds, because at that time, although he exceeded his 193-pound MAW, he was below 
his body fat maximum of 27%.  According to article 1.A of the COMDTINST M1020.8D 
as long as the applicant remained at or below his screening weight of 225 pounds, he 
was not required to undergo future body fat measurements.  Clearly in December 2002, 
the applicant, at 245 pounds, had exceeded his screening MAW of 225 pounds and was 
required to undergo a body fat measurement.   

 
3. 

Article 4.c. of COMDTINST M1020.8D states that the assignment of a new 
screening  weight  does  not  establish  a  new  MAW.    This  provisions  states  that  the 
screening  weight  is  designed  to  avoid  having  a  member  undergo  additional  body  fat 
determinations as long as the member does not gain additional weight.  It further states 
the following.  

 
If the member exceeds the screening weight, he or she will be screened for 
a new body fat determination.  If determined to be over fat, he or she shall 
be  placed  on  probation  IAW  the  standards  outlined  in  Article  3.C.  with 
calculations  based  upon  the  member's  original  MAW,  not  his  or  her 
screening weight. [Emphasis added.]  
 
4. 

The  above  provision  established  that  when  the  applicant  exceeded  his 
screening  weight  he  was  to  receive  a  new  body  fat  determination  and  that  the 
calculation to determine any excessive weight would be based upon his original MAW, 
which  in  the  applicant's  case  was  193  pounds.    The  Coast  Guard  acted  in  accordance 

with regulations when it used the applicant's original MAW to determine whether he 
should  be  placed  on  weight  probation  or  discharged.    Discharge  was  appropriate 
because  Article  3.C.  states  that  if  a  probation  would  require  a  period  longer  than  36 
weeks the member is to be discharged.  Under the regulation, the Coast Guard uses a 
calculation of one pound per week or 1% body fat per month to determine how long it 
would take a member to lose excess weight.  Losing one pound per week would have 
required a probationary period in the applicant's case of 52 weeks, far more than the 36-
week  probationary  period  allowed  in  the  regulation.  Even  if  the  excess  body  fat  had 
been  used  to  calculate  the  probationary  period,  it  would  have  taken  the  applicant  12 
months  to lose the excess body fat losing 1% body fat per month, which  would  have 
also exceeded the 36 weeks probationary period.  According to the medical examination 
subsequent  to  the  applicant's  December  7,  2002  screening,  there  was  no  underlying 
medical reason that prevented the applicant from losing weight. 

 
6. 

Other  than  his  allegation,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the 
applicant was given a weight waiver.   However in June 2001, the applicant was given a 
screening MAW of 225 pound, as discussed above. 

 
7. 

The  applicant's  argument  that  the  Coast  Guard's  failure  to  perfect  its 
attempt  to  place  him  on  probation  in  August  2002,  denied  him  the  opportunity  for  a 
probationary weight period is without merit.  In this regard, the Board notes that the 
attempted probation was in violation of the regulation and that it was never enforced. 
The  Board  fails  to  see  any  prejudice  to  the  applicant  as  a  result  of  the  Coast  Guard's 
failed attempt to illegally place him on weight probation. Moreover, the applicant could 
have benefited from this mistake by heeding the fact that he exceeded his MAF by 12% 
and deciding to do something about it.  Instead, by the time the applicant was screened 
in December 2002 he had gained an additional 24 pounds.  Rather than gaining weight, 
if  the  applicant  had  lost  weight,  the  December  discharge  probably  would  not  have 
occurred.  The applicant does not deny that he was aware on August 1, 2002 that he had 
exceeded his body fat measurement. 

 
8.    Regarding  the  applicant's  assertion  that  he  was  never  counseled  about  a 
weight loss program from medical personnel, the Board finds that he was not eligible 
for  a  medical  referral  resulting  from  either  the  August  1,  2002,  or  December  7,  2002 
screenings.  According to Article 3.B. of COMDTINST M1020.8D excessive body fat is 
required for a medical referral.  The applicant did not meet this requirement because on 
August 1, 2002,  he was below his screening MAW. Any body fat measurement taken 
while he was below his screening MAW violated the regulation, because Article 1.A of 
the COMDTINST M1020.8D provides that as long as the applicant remained at or below 
his  screening  weight  of  225  pounds,  he  was  not  required  to  undergo  body  fat 
measurements.  Although a referral after the August 1, 2002, screening may have been 
helpful to the applicant, the Coast Guard did not err by not doing so.  The December 7, 
2002,  screening  did  not  require  a  referral  for  counseling  because  under  the  weight 

instruction the applicant was to be discharged because his probationary period would 
have exceeded the 36 weeks allowed under regulation. Moreover, the Board notes that 
the applicant received counseling about his weight. A CWO from the applicant's unit 
stated that he counseled the applicant weekly about dieting and exercising to bring his 
weight  into  compliance.  While  the  applicant  complains  about  the  Coast  Guard's 
failures,  he  does  not  offer  any  evidence  that  he  sought  counseling  from  Coast  Guard 
Personnel about losing weight. 

 
9.  The applicant complained that each of the weight screenings stated a different 
height (5'6", 5'8", and 5'7") and wrist size (7 1/2 and 7 3/4 inches).  This complaint is 
without merit because any combination of the various height and wrist measurements 
would produce a MAW that is well below the applicant's December 7, 2002 weight of 
245 pounds.  Using a height of 68 inches and a wrist measurement of 7 3/4 inches, the 
applicant's MAW would have been 201 pounds.   

 
10.    The  applicant  also  alleged  that  maltreatment  by  his  unit  personnel 
contributed to his weight problem.  However, the applicant offered no evidence on this 
point,  except  for  his  own  allegations.    The  applicant's  sole  statement  in  this  regard  is 
insufficient  to  persuade  the  Board  that  he  was  harassed  and  abused  by  his  unit.    In 
passing, the Board notes that the applicant failed to explain how such alleged treatment 
contributed to his weight gain.   

 
11.    Last,  the  Board  notes  that  Article  2.J.  of  the  weight  instruction  allows 
members  discharged  for  exceeding  their  MAWs  or  body  fat  standards  to  request 
reenlistment to their former rates provided they comply with their MAW or maximum 
body fat standards and have not been out of the service for more than 24 months.  This 
provision further provides that each request will be evaluated based on service need, 
the member's past performance, and previous appearance problems. A March 11, 2003, 
page 7 advising the applicant of this benefit stated that he had to request reenlistment 
between six and 12 months.  Which ever period is correct, there is no evidence that the 
applicant sought reenlistment.  It appears to the Board that if the applicant were serious 
about  wanting  to  stay  in  the  Coast  Guard,  he  would  have  taken  the  opportunity  to 
become weight and body fat compliant and requested reenlistment.   

 
12.  There is disagreement between TJAG and CGPC on whether the August 1, 
2002  page  7  placing  the  applicant  on  probation  should  be  removed  from  the  military 
record,  although  each  has  agreed  that  it  was  prepared  in  error.    If  the  document  is 
erroneous and not marked as such, it may prove to be prejudicial to the applicant in the 
future.  However, since the applicant has not requested the removal of this document, 
the Board will not do so.  The Board is hesitant to make a correction to a record that has 
not been requested by an applicant.   
 

13.  The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his 
discharge  by  reason  of  weight  failure  was  in  error  or  unjust.  Accordingly,  the 
applicant's request should be denied.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                    
 

 
 
 
 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of ________________ USCG, for correction of his military record 

is denied. 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
  

 

_______________________ 
 James G. Parks 

________________________ 

 
             Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

________________________ 
 Darren S. Wall