DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-140 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receipt of the applicant’s 
completed application and military records on March 26, 2010, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c).          
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  13,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

REQUEST 

 

 
 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she remained on active 
duty and was not discharged because of weight control failure on December 18, 2009.  She also 
requested that all administrative remarks pages (page 7s) generated by Sector Delaware Bay be 
removed from her military  record.  Additionally, the applicant  requested to be restored to the 
rank  of  YN1.    She  was  demoted  from  YN1  to  YN2  because  of  incompetency  prior  to  her 
discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 

ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant’s last weight and body fat measurements occurred on November 2, 2009.  
At that time, she was 65 inches tall and weighed 172 pounds.  Her waist measured 33 inches, her 
neck measured 14 inches, and her buttocks measured 43 inches.  She had 37% body fat.  Based 
on these measurements, the applicant was determined to be 7 pounds overweight and 3% over 
her allowable body fat percentage.  The November 2, 2009, page 7 advised the applicant that this 
was  her  third  consecutive  semiannual  weigh-in  period  in  which  she  exceeded  the  maximum 
allowable weight (MAW)1 and body fat percentage, which was a basis for separation from the 
Coast  Guard.    The  command  informed  the  applicant  that  instead  of  placement  on  weight 
probation,  she  would  be  recommended  for  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant 
                                                 
1 MAW is the weight permitted for a member based on body mass index.   

alleged that although she met her MAW on November 24, 2009, prior to her discharge, the Coast 
Guard separated her anyway.  She alleged that she was told by LT K that the discharge would be 
stopped since she met her MAW, but according to the applicant, the LT failed to promptly input 
her November 24 2009 weight compliance data into Direct Access.     
 
 
The applicant alleged that her command violated the Coast Guard’s Weight and Body Fat 
Program  Manual  (COMDTINST  M1020.8G)  by  requiring  her  to  lose  7  pounds  in  7  days 
between April and May 2009.  She stated that the regulation requires a loss of one pound per 
week  or  1%  body  fat  per  month.    She  also  alleged  that  her  MAW  kept  changing  without 
restarting  or  adjusting  her  probationary  period.    For  instance,  the  applicant’s  MAW  was  180 
pounds on November 13, 2008, 173 pounds on May 4, 2009, and, 165 pounds on November 2, 
2009. 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that her supervisor, a CWO2 retaliated against her by using her 
weight as a reason to discharge her from the Coast Guard and to reduce her in rate because she 
accused the supervisor of violating Article 117 of the Uniform Code of military Justice by using 
provoking  speech  and  gestures  toward  the  applicant.    The  applicant  asked  to  be  reinstated  to 
YN1.    
 
Pertinent Page 7s Pertaining to the Applicant’s Weight Control Failure 

The applicant’s military record reveals that she had weight control problems off and on 

 
during her Coast Guard career.  
 
  
On  August  30,  2002,  a  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant’s  record  noting  her 
compliance with the weight requirement.  Her wrist measurement was 7½ inches, her height was 
65 inches and her MAW was 190 pounds.   
 

 

On  May  25,  2006,  a  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant’s  record  placing  her  on 
probation  because  she  was  15  pounds  over  her  MAW  of  180  pounds.    Her  wrist  size  was 
between 7½ and 7¾ inches, her height was 65 inches, and her weight was 195 pounds.   
 

On May 16, 2007, a page 7 was entered into the applicant’s record advising her that she 
was  7  pounds  overweight.    According  to  the  page  7,  she  was  65  inches  tall,  had  a  wrist 
measurement of between 7½ to 7¾ inches, and weighed 187 pounds.  Her MAW at this time was 
180 pounds.    
 
 
On November 13, 2008, an administrative remarks page (page 7) was  entered into the 
applicant’s record counseling her that she was 7 pounds overweight and had 8% excess body fat.  
The  page  7  noted  her  weight  to  be  187  pounds  and  her  height  to  be  65  inches.    The  page  7 
advised the applicant that she was required to lose the weight and/or body fat by July 17, 2009, 
and  that  if  she  failed  to  reach  weight  compliance  by  the  end  of  the  probationary  period,  she 
would  be  recommended  for  separation.    The  applicant  acknowledged  the  page  7  with  her 
signature on that date.   
 

On April 21, 2009, a page 7 was entered into the applicant’s record advising her that she 

 
was weight compliant and that her weight probationary period had ended. 
 
 
On  May  4,  2009,  the  applicant  was  advised  on  a  page  7  that  she  was  7  pounds 
overweight.  She weighed 180 pounds, stood 64.5 inches tall, and had a wrist measurement of 
between 7 and 7.25 inches.  She also had a 34-inch waist and a 14.5-inch neck, with 39% body 
fat.  The page 7 notified the applicant that she was required to lose 7 pounds or drop below 35% 
body fat by September 4, 2009.  The applicant acknowledged the entry with her signature.   
 
 
On  June  9,  2009,  the  applicant  acknowledged  a  page  7  informing  her  that  her 
probationary  period  had  ended  because  she  weighed  171  pounds  and  was  compliant  with  her 
MAW.   
 
 
she acknowledged with her signature: 
 

On November 2, 2009, the following page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record which 

On this date you have been determined to be 7 pounds over your MAW and 3% 
over  your  maximum  allowable  body  fat.    Your  measurements  are:  Height:  65 
(inches), Weight: 172 pounds, Waist 33 (inches), Neck 14 (inches), Buttocks 43 
(inches).  Your age is: 34 and your percent body fat is 37%.  In accordance with  
reference  (a)  [Coast  Guard  Weight  and  Body  Fat  Standards  Program  Manual, 
COMDTINST M1020.8 (series)] this is your third consecutive semiannual weigh-
in period over the max[imum] weight and body fat %.  Therefore, you are hereby 
notified that, instead of probation, you will be recommended for separation.  By 
signature below you acknowledge both this entry and that you have been afforded 
the opportunity to review COMDTINST M1020.8 (series).   

 
 
On  November  19,  2008,  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC) 
approved  the  applicant  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  because  she  exceeded  the  weight  and 
body fat standards.  
 
 
 On December 18, 2009, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard 
because of weight control failure.  At that time she had served on active duty for sixteen years, 
five months, and twenty-six days.   
 
Reduction in Rate 
 
 
On  October  2,  2008,  the  applicant  was  counseled  that  she  was  not  meeting  her 
responsibilities as auditor/PAO for her unit.  She was informed that she was not fully researching 
and using current instructions to complete pay transactions and that she was blaming others for 
her  mistakes.    She  was  advised  that  failure  to  adhere  to  the  Commandant’s  policy  and  to  her 
supervisor’s  direction  would  result  in  a  mark  of  “not  recommended  for  advancement”  on  her 
performance evaluation and in placement on performance probation.   
 

 
In October 2008, the applicant was informed that she was a candidate for reduction-in-
rate by reason of incompetence and that she would be evaluated over a three-month period.  The 
applicant acknowledged the page 7 entry. 
 
 
On  November  5,  2008,  the  applicant  was  counseled  on  a  page  7  that  she  was  not 
performing  her  duties  as  auditor/PAO  because  she  failed  to  ensure  that  members’  pay 
entitlements were accurate.  She was reminded to be diligent in her research and to consult the 
chief petty officer when in doubt.  She was told that further mistakes of the same nature would 
result in disciplinary action.  The applicant acknowledged the entry. 
 
 
On December 1, 2008, the applicant was counseled again about her poor performance of 
duty.  Her authority to sign documents on behalf of the command was revoked.  The applicant 
acknowledged this entry.   
 
On December 23, 2008, the applicant was provided with performance feedback and told 
 
that she was progressing.  She was told that a review of her work showed a lack of attention to 
detail and diligence by not ensuring that all documents were correct.   
 
 
On  January  29,  2009,  the  applicant’s  competency  evaluation  period  ended.    The 
commanding  officer  told  the  applicant  that  rather  than  incompetence,  her  performance  issues 
were more a matter of lack of diligence and indolent behavior.  The CO stated that the applicant 
continued to produce work of poor quality and he gave the applicant 10 examples of her work 
that  required  improvement.    The  CO  stated  that  rather  than  a  reduction  in  rank,  he  would 
recommend performance probation.   
 
On March 6, 2009, the CO informed the applicant that she was being placed on a twelve-
 
month performance probationary period and he provided her with guidance on what was required 
to successfully complete the probationary period.  In addition, the CO stated that “you will be 
observed, counseled, and mentored to ensure  you have the necessary tools available to you to 
successfully complete this probation.  Should you fail to successfully complete this probationary 
period,  you  are  subject  to  being  processed  for  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard  by  reason  of 
unsuitability. The CO also told the applicant that he was authorized to recommend her separation 
at any time prior to the expiration of the probationary period if she failed to make a conscientious 
effort to overcome her deficiencies or if she violated the conditions of her probation.   
 

On March 6, 2009, the administration officer (AO) provided the applicant with details of 
her  probation  and  told  her  that  she  would  no  longer  be  supervisor  of  the  SPO  (servicing 
personnel  office)  staff  but  would  be  assigned  to  be  a  record’s  yeoman.    The  applicant 
acknowledged the entry. 
  
 
her probation as spelled out in the March 6, 2009 page 7.   
 
On May 29, 2009, the CO removed the applicant from the SPO and assigned her as the 
 
command  administrative  assistant  to  work  for  LT  K  because  she  had  failed  to  the  meet  the 
expectations of her probation. 

On May 8, 2009, the AO told the applicant that she was not meeting the requirements of 

On June 11, 2009, the CO told the applicant that her probation had ended because of her 

 
 
change in primary duties and reduction in pay grade.   
 

application was timely. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 10, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard adopted the 
comments from PSC as the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.  PSC recommended that the Board 
deny the requested relief.  In this regard, the PSC argued that the Coast Guard is presumptively 
correct and the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice in her record.   
 
 
PSC stated that on November 2, 2009, the Coast Guard determined that the applicant was 
not in compliance with the weight and body fat standards for the third consecutive time in less 
than  12  months.    PSC  stated  that  Article  3.3.1  of  COMDTINST  M1020.8G,  permits  the 
separation of a member who has been non-compliant with the weight and body fat standards for 
three consecutive weight-ins.  According to PSC, the applicant’s situation met the requirements 
of  Article  3.3.1.  of  COMDTINST  M1020.8G  and  she  was  properly  separated  from  the  Coast 
Guard in accordance with that policy.   
 
 
(YN1).  
 

The Coast Guard did not address the applicant’s request to be reinstated to pay grade E-6 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 14, 2010, the Board received the applicants reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  She restated contentions that she had made earlier.  She also alleged that in April 2009, 
the  AO  (the  CWO2)  changed  the  applicant’s  weight  characteristics  by  entering  incorrect 
numbers into Direct Access.  The applicant complained that there is no recourse for the member 
when data is input incorrectly into Direct Access.  The applicant also appeared to allege that she 
had  an  underlying  medical  condition  (Lyme  disease)  that  made  losing  weight  difficult.  She 
submitted copies of medical records showing that she was treated for Lyme disease.   She alleged 
that  during  her  probationary  periods,  she  did  not  receive  meaningful  weight  loss  or  dietary 
counseling.   
 
 
With regard to reinstatement to YN1, the applicant stated that according to the Personnel 
Manual, “[a]fter 6 months you are authorized to regain your original rank after reduction.”   She 
also stated that the removal of all page 7s from her record that were prepared by Sector Delaware 
will allow for a fresh start with the Coast Guard.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The 

 
2.   The question before the Board is whether the Coast Guard committed an error by 
discharging the applicant under Article 3.3.1 of COMDTINST M1020.8G. because she exceeded 
the weight and/or body fat standards on three consecutive weigh-ins.  For the reasons discussed 
below, the Board finds that the Coast Guard did not commit an error in this regard.  

 
3.  On September 8, 2009, the Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 512/09, with an effective 
date of October 1, 2009.  Under this ALCOAST, the Coast Guard implemented a new standard 
for  determining  a  member’s  MAW  based  on  Body  Mass  Index  (BMI).2    The  ALCOAST 
contained a chart that listed the MAW based on a member’s height and a BMI of 27.5, regardless 
of age and gender.3  The applicant was 65 inches tall, so under the BMI standard her MAW was 
165 pounds.  She exceeded her MAW by 7 pounds on November 2, 2009. 

 
4.  According to ALCOAST 512/09, although a member’s MAW and body fat number 
will  change  under  the  new  standard,  the  process  and  procedures  of  the  Weight  and  Body  Fat 
Program (COMDTINST M1020.8 (series)) remained in effect.  Therefore, under COMDTINST 
M1020.8 (series) and  ALCOAST 512/09, because the applicant exceeded her MAW, she was 
subject to a body fat measurement to determine whether she exceeded her maximum body fat 
allowance.  According to the November 2, 2009 page 7, she exceeded her maximum allowable 
body fat by 3%.   

 
5.  Because the applicant exceeded her MAW and her maximum allowable body fat, she 
was not in compliance with the Coast Guard’s Weight and Body Fat Program, as amended by 
ALCOAST 512/09.  Because the November 2, 2009 weigh-in was her third consecutive weigh-in 
in which she was not in compliance with the Coast Guard’s weight and body fat program, she 
was subject to separation.  In this regard, the applicant was not in compliance on November 13, 
2008,  May  4,  2009,  and  November  2,  2009.    Paragraph  6.D  of  ALCOAST  512/09  states  the 
following:    “If  a  member  is  found  non-compliant  with  weight/body  fat  standards  during  this 
October  weigh-in,  and  it  is  their  third  consecutive  non-compliant  weigh-in  they  shall  be 
processed for separation.”   

 
6.  The applicant argued that she met her weight requirements on November 24, 2009, but 
she was discharged anyway.  She provided no evidence to support this allegation.  Even if she 
did meet weight standards by November 24, 2009, the Commandant had approved her discharge 
on  November  19,  2009.    Moreover,  the  Coast  Guard  was  not  obligated  to  consider  such 
information because she was not on weight probation and nothing in the regulation stated that a 
discharge for non-compliance would be terminated because the applicant stated that she had met 
her weight and/or body fat requirement prior to her discharge date.  Moreover, since she was not 
on weight probation, the Coast Guard had no duty to monitor her weight and/or body fat after the 
November 2, 2009 weigh-in.  Accordingly, the applicant has not shown by a preponderance of 

                                                 
2 ALCOAST 469/08 issued in September 2008 and ALCOAST 168/09 issued on March 21, 2009, advised 
members  that  effective  October  1,  2009,  the  Coast  Guard  would  be  implementing  a  new  standards  for 
determining MAW based on the BMI.  
3 Prior to October 1, 2009, the Coast Guard used a member’s wrist measurement and height to determine 
their MAW.   

the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  discharging  her  for  non-compliance 
with the weight and body fat requirements of ALCOAST 512/09.   

 
 
7.  The applicant’s request for reinstatement to YN1 is denied because the applicant has 
submitted  insufficient  evidence  that  she  performed  at  a  higher  level  than  indicated  by  her 
command.  She indicated in her statements that her supervisor was rude to her and treated her 
unfairly because she had attempted to place her on report for using provoking speech towards the 
applicant, but there is no evidence, except for the applicant’s allegations, that this treatment was 
prevalent  throughout  the  probationary  period  and  that  it  was  so  severe  that  the  applicant  was 
unable to perform the duties of a YN1.  It appears that the applicant’s unit complied with Article 
5.C.38.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  reducing  the  applicant  to  YN2  because  of  failure  to 
successfully complete her probationary period.  The applicant did not provide the Board with a 
specific  regulation,  and  the  Board  is  aware  of  none,  which  stated  that  a  member  reduced  for 
incompetency  will  be  reinstated  to  the  grade  from  which  reduced  after  a  six-month  period.  
Therefore, the applicant’s request for reinstatement to YN1 should be denied due to insufficient 
evidence of error or injustice.    
 
 
8.    The  applicant  requested  to  have  all  page  7s  prepared  while  assigned  to  CG  Sector 
Delaware Bay removed from her military record.  However, there is insufficient evidence that 
any of the page 7s are erroneous.  All of the allegations have been considered, and those are not 
discussed in the findings and conclusions are considered not to be dispositive of the issues in this 
case.   
 
 
9.    Under  the  regulation,  members  like  the  applicant  who  are  discharged  for  non-
compliance  with  the  Weight  and  Body  Fat  program  can  request  reenlistment  provided  the 
member is within their MAW, meets appearance standards, and has been out of the service for 
less  than  24  months.    However,  the  decision  to  authorize  such  reenlistment  will  be  based  on 
service need and the member’s past performance.  The applicant indicated in an email to that she 
is weight compliant and has been denied reenlistment on three separate occasions.  The Board is 
not aware of the reason for the Coast Guard’s refusal to reenlist the applicant, but service need, if 
that is the reason, is a legitimate reason for not doing so.   
 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an 

error or injustice. 

record is denied.   

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of her military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer