DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

_____________________________ 
                                      
Application for Correction          
of Coast Guard Record of:                                    
                                                                                                                       BCMR Docket 
XXXXXXXXXXX                                                                                          No. 2002-073 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
_____________________________ 

 

FINAL DECISION 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  XX,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 
 
This is a proceeding under section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the 
United States Code.  It was docketed on March 22, 2002 upon the Board's receipt of the 
applicant's complete application for the correction of her military record. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  removing  a  negative 
administrative  remarks  (page  7)  entry  documenting  the  commanding  officer's  (CO's) 
six-month suspension of his recommendation for her advancement to chief petty officer 
(pay grade E-7).  Also, she requested that the Board set aside her involuntary discharge 
for weight noncompliance and restore her to active duty with back pay and allowances.  
She further requested that her DD Form 214 be corrected to show that she contributed 
to the Montgomery G I Bill (MGIB) and that she is entitled to education benefits under 
that program.   
 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 15, 199X.  She served on 
active duty until XXXXXXXXXXXX, when she was honorably discharged due to weight 
control  failure.    She  was  assigned  an  RE-3F  (eligible  for  reenlistment  except  for 
disqualifying factor: exceeds weight standards) reenlistment code.   
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
Beginning  in  XXXXX,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  probation  several  times 
because  she  failed  to  meet  the  weight  and  body  fat  requirements  contained  in 
COMDTINST  M1020.8C  (Allowable  Weight  Standards  for  Coast  Guard  Military 
Personnel).  This instruction promulgates policy and procedures for the administration 
of the allowable weight standards of the Coast Guard and the processing of members 
for separation who fail to meet the standards.  The instruction contains the following 
pertinent provisions: 
 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

2 

 
Paragraph  3.B.  states  "All  military  personnel  shall  be  screened  against  the 
maximum allowable weight standards [MAW] . . . at least annually . . . Personnel failing 
the initial screen will be measured against the percentage of body fat standards . . . to 
determine if they are in compliance with Coast Guard weight/body fat standards."   
 
Paragraph  3.C.  states  "Unless  granted  an  exemption  .  .  .  overweight  members 
 
who  also  exceed  their  maximum  body  fat  percentage  (overfat)  will  be  placed  in  a 
probationary  period  to  allow  them  to  come  within  their  [MAW]  or  body  fat 
percentage."   
 
 
Paragraph 3.H. states "Members failing to reach compliance with their [MAW] or 
body fat standard by the end of a probationary period will be processed for separation."    
 
 
Paragraph 5.C. States "All overweight members who exceed the maximum body 
fat  standards  shall  be  referred  to  a  medical  facility  to    .  .  .  determine  if  there  is  an 
underlying medical cause and whether it is medically safe for the member to lose the 
excess fat."    
 
 
On  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  the  applicant  was  determined  to  be  24  pounds 
overweight.    As  required  by  the  regulation,  she  was  referred  to  a  medical  officer  to 
determine whether it was medically safe for her to lose the excess weight.  At the time 
of referral, the applicant's maximum allowable weight (MAW) was 170 pounds, but she 
weighed 194 pounds.  Her body fat measured 41%, which was 6% above the maximum 
allowable body fat standard.1  The medical officer stated that she had slow metabolism 
and  a  hormone  imbalance  causing  weight  gain  and  severe  fatigue, but the conditions 
were resolving. He also stated that it was safe for the applicant to lose the weight and 
that he expected her to meet the weight standards within one year with the proper diet 
and exercise.  The applicant was placed on weight probation for a period of 12 months 
and was expected to lose the excess weight within that period. 
 
 
On  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  the  applicant  was  removed  from  weight  probation 
because she had met the requirements of the Coast Guard weight program.  At this time 
she weighed 186 pounds and had 33% body fat.   
 
 
On XXXXXXXXXXXXX, the applicant was again referred to a medical officer (not 
the  one  she  had  seen  earlier)  because  she  exceeded  her  MAW  by  31  pounds  and  her 

                                                 
1   Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 1ists the maximum body fat percentage for women.  They are 
33% for women less than 30 years of age, 35% for women less that 40 years of age, and 37 
percent for women 40 years of age and older.   
 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

3 

maximum allowable body fat by 6%.  The applicant's MAW was 177 pounds,2 but she 
weighed  210  pounds.    Her  body  fat  was  at  41%.    The  medical  officer  stated  that  the 
applicant was suffering from XXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, which contributed 
to her weight gain.  He stated that the conditions had stabilized with medication.  Also, 
he  stated  that  it  was  safe  for  the  applicant  to  lose  the  excess  weight  and  he 
recommended that she meet with the physiologist to obtain an exercise regime.   
 
 
On December 27, 199X, the applicant was notified that she was being placed on 
weight probation because she had exceeded her MAW.  The page 7 entry stated that she 
was 33 pounds overweight and had 41% body fat.  She was told that she was required 
to lose 33 pounds and to reduce her body fat below 35% by August 23, 2000, and if she 
failed to meet this standard she would be recommended for separation.  She was also 
advised "all actions listed in Chapter three of COMDTINST M1020.8 will be withheld 
until  [she]  complied  with  weight  and  body  fat  standards."3 
  The  applicant 
acknowledged this page 7 with her signature. 
 
 
On  May  19,  2000,  the  medical  officer  wrote  a  letter  to  whom  it  may  concern 
explaining the applicant's situation.  He stated that he was evaluating the effectiveness 
of  the  medication  used  to  treat  the  applicant's  hyperthyroidism.    He  stated,  "Thyroid 
disease can contribute to weight gain.  With respect to a weight loss plan, he wrote the 
following:    "I  would  recommend  that  any  plan  not  exceed  one  pound  per  week  of 
weight loss.  Programs which would lose more weight than this amount may well be 
harmful to the patient in the long-term."  He encouraged the applicant to consult with a 
naval station physiologist.  
 
 
On July 18, 2000 the applicant was advised that she was eligible to reenlist for up 
to six years and to receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) with a multiple of 1.  She 
was 
the  SRB  upon 
reenlistment/extension, but the remaining 50% would be withheld until she complied 
with weight and body fat standards.   
 
 
On XXXXXXXXXX, the applicant was disenrolled from the weight program for 
approximately eight weeks to allow her time to adjust to new thyroid medication that 
had been prescribed by a third medical officer.  At the end of the eight-week period, she 
would be medically evaluated for reenrollment into the weight program.   

receive  50%  of 

further  advised 

that 

she  would 

                                                 
2   It was later determined that from December 27, 1999 forward, the applicant had an adjusted 
MAW of 186 pounds. 
3   Chapter three of COMDTINST M1020.8C states the following pertinent actions will be 
withheld for those members who have been notified and acknowledged that they have 
exceeded their MAW and maximum body fat percentage:  advancement or promotion; 
assignment to command position both ashore and float; assignment to resident training, 
advanced training, etc; and SRP payment beyond the initial 50% payment.   

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

4 

 
 
On  a  page  7  entry,  dated  XXXXXXXXX,  the  applicant  was  informed  that  on 
XXXXXXXXXXXX,  she  had  been  cleared  by  the  medical  officer  to  continue  with  the 
Coast  Guard's  weight  loss  program.    The  applicant  claimed  that  she  was  never 
counseled  about  this  and  acknowledged the page 7 on February 1, 2001, the date she 
became aware of it. The page 7 advised the applicant of the following: 
 

You  have  this  date  been  re-screened  and  determined  to  be  46  pounds 
overweight.  Your measurements are:  Height: 64", wrist size 7.5", weight: 
223  pounds.    Your  age  is  34  and  your  percent  body  fat  is  45%.    In 
accordance with COMDTINST M1020.8, you are hereby notified that you 
are required to lose 43 pounds or drop below 35% body fat by [September 
15, 2001].  You must show satisfactory progress through out the period.  If 
after 5 months, approximately half of the weight has not been shed, then 
you will be recommended for separation.  Furthermore, until you are in 
compliance with weight or body fat standards, all actions listed in Chapter 
three of COMDTINST M1020.8 will be withheld.  By signature below, you 
acknowledge  both  this  entry  and  that  you  have  been  afforded  the 
opportunity to review COMDTINST M1020.8.   

 
 
On XXXXXXXXX, the applicant was informed by her commanding officer (CO) 
that he had begun action to discharge her from the Coast Guard due to her failure to 
maintain Coast Guard weight standards.  The CO told the applicant that she was at the 
midway point of her most recent probationary period and she had not lost half of the 46 
pounds as he directed in the November 2000 page 7.  The CO explained to the applicant 
that  rather  than  discharging  her  in  November  2000  he  had  requested  that  the 
Commandant  grant  her  a  waiver.    He  stated,  "the  waiver  was  approved  with  the 
stipulation that half way through the probation, [the applicant] must loose half of [her] 
excess weight."  He stated that, on May 14, 2001, the applicant had lost 7 pounds and 2 
percent  body  fat,  which  demonstrated  that  she  was  not  making  reasonable  progress 
toward losing the excess weight.   
 
 
On  XXXXXXXXXX    a  page  7  counseling  entry  was  placed  in  the  applicant's 
record  documenting  that  she  was  not  recommended  for  advancement  on  her  most 
recent  performance  evaluation.    The  CO  advised  her  that  he  was  suspending  his 
recommendation  that  she  be  advanced  to  chief  petty  officer  (pay  grade  E-7)  for  six 
months.  The  page  7  provided  the  applicant  with  the  reasons  for  the  suspension  and 
with guidance on improving her performance in order to obtain a recommendation for 
advancement.  It stated the following, in pertinent part: 
 

You  have  failed  to  demonstrate  consistently,  the 
leadership  and 
performance  factors  that  are  necessary  for  advancement  to  Chief  Petty 
Officer.  Your lack of motivation and enthusiasm not only has discredited 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

5 

yourself, but is being passed on to your subordinates.  You clearly have 
the knowledge and expertise to be a Chief Petty Officer, but you need to 
consistently  demonstrate  the  attributes  that  I  feel  are  necessary  to  be 
advanced.  Due to my belief that you can perform up to the standards if 
you put your mind to it, I will re-evaluate this suspension on 31 October 
2001. 

 
 
On  XXXXXXXXXX,  the  CO  recommended  that  the  Coast  Guard  discharge  the 
applicant because she had failed "to maintain Coast Guard weight standards."  The CO 
stated  that  the  applicant  had  been  given  "more  than  ample  time  to  comply  with  the 
Coast  Guard  weight  standards  and  has  shown  little  progress  towards  reaching  her 
weight  loss  goals." 
  He  stated  that  the  applicant  had  been  informed  of  the 
recommendation  to  discharge  her  and  had  been  advised  of  her  right  to  submit  a 
statement in her own behalf, which she did objecting to the discharge. 
 
 
In her statement, dated XXXXXXXXX, the applicant objected to being discharged 
from  the  Coast  Guard  before  she  completed  her  probationary  period.    She  asked  to 
remain in the Coast Guard, and in support of that request she cited her above average 
performance.  She further stated as follows: 
 

 

I  was  placed  on  a  six-month  probationary  period  on  27  December  99 
under Dr. [J.'s] care.  He was subsequently transferred overseas and in the 
following six months I was shuffled from one doctor to another . . . never 
seeing  one  more  than  twice.    I  continually  complained  of  debilitating 
fatigue, muscle aches and depression . . . Because my thyroid-stimulating 
hormone was fluctuating above, below and within the normal range, each 
doctor changed my XXXXXXXXX dosage at every appointment.  

[Finally] I was referred to a Dr. [C.] for my symptoms.  [He] was familiar 
with  the  T3  treatment  and  I  was  prescribed  it  as  part  of  my  thyroid 
treatment and I began to feel almost immediate relief.  At this point I was 
re-screened and placed back on a probationary period.  I did not believe, 
nor do I still believe that a waiver would have been necessary if the full 
details  of  the  shoddy  medical  treatment  I  had  received  up  until  Dr.  [C.] 
assumed  my  case    .  .  .  There  was  a  complete  medical  background  to 
explain my case.   
 
I will admit that when I signed the page 7 placing me on current probation 
that  I  did  not  fully  read  the  probationary  stipulations  and was unaware 
that  I  had  to  have  half  of  my  weight  off  by  the  mid-period.    I  was 
concentrating on the end of my probation in September and was caught 
completely by surprise by the command's decision to discharge me at this 
point.  I had shown progress in losing inches and weight up until the May 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

6 

Servicewide [advancement examination (SWE)], when I was concentrating 
more  on  the  test  than  losing  the  weight,  believing  my  deadline  was 
September  and  I  still  had  time.    I  also  concede  that  I  could  have  shown 
more progress by now. 

The  applicant  alleged 

 
On XXXXXXXXXX, the Commandant directed the applicant's discharge no later 
 
than  XXXXXXXXXXX.    He  directed  that  a  page  7  entry  containing  the  following 
information  be  placed  in  the  applicant's  record:    "Active  duty  enlisted  members 
discharged  for  exceeding  the  maximum  allowable  weight  or  for  appearance 
shortcomings may request reenlistment to their former rate provided she is within the 
maximum  allowable  weight,  meet  appearance  standards  and  have  been  out  of  the 
service  at  least  6,  but  no  longer  than  12  months.    The  service's  decision  to  authorize 
reenlistment will be based on its needs and the member's past performance."   He also 
authorized the recouping of any unearned reenlistment bonus.   
 
 
The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  XXXXXXXXXX  due  to  weight 
control  failure.    She  was  given  the  corresponding  JCR  separation  code  and  a  RE-3F4 
reenlistment code. 
 
Applicant Allegations 
 
 
that  starting  with  her  XXXXXXXXXXX  weight 
probationary  period,  her  command  improperly  stated  her MAW.  She stated that her 
MAW  should  have  been  186 pounds rather than the 177 pounds.  She stated that the 
incorrect 177 pound MAW was used from XXXXXXXXXXXX  until her discharge.   
 
 
The applicant complained that the XXXXXXXXXXX page 7 placing her back on 
probation  for  failure  to  meet  weight  standards  was  not  given  to  her  to  sign  until 
XXXXXXXXXXXX.  She stated that she was not counseled that this would happen and 
objected  to  it.    She  states  the  page  7  is  incorrect  in  that  she  was  not  46  pounds 
overweight but rather 37 pounds overweight, using the 186 -pound adjusted MAW.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that her superiors told her that if she showed significant 
progress in losing weight they "would stop the [discharge] process."  She stated that she 
had lost 15 pounds by XXXXXXXXX and had lost 23 pounds by XXXXXXX.  She stated 
that  on  XXXXXXXXX,  she  was  told  by  the  CO  that  "the  process  cannot  be  stopped 
unless  [she  lost]  all  the  weight  before  XXXXXXXXXXX  and  it  may  not  be  able  to  be 
stopped then."  According to the applicant, losing all of the weight prior to the end of 
the  probationary  period  would  have  been  at  a  faster  rate  than  deemed  safe  by  her 
                                                 
4   The JCR separation code and the RE-3F reenlistment code represent the "involuntary 
discharge directed by established directive  . . . when a member fails to meet established weight 
control standards."  See the Separation Designator Handbook.   

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

7 

On September 25, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 

doctor, which was 4 pounds per month.  She stated that when she was discharged on 
XXXXXXXXXX, she was 9 pounds over her MAW of 186 pounds.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  individuals  who  made  the  decision  to  discharge 
her  were  prejudiced  against  her.  In  particular,  she  stated  that  the  detailer  was  biased 
against  her  because  of  the  problems  he  encountered  in  attempting  to  transfer  her  to 
another duty station because of her overweight status. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  she  was  not  counseled  on  or  notified  about  the 
contents  of  XXXXXXXXXXX  page  7  entry  documenting  the  CO's  suspension  of  his 
recommendation  for  her  advancement  before  it  was  placed  in  her  record.    She  stated 
that she signed the page 7 under duress, which she attributed to the events surrounding 
her overweight status.  She further stated that while her performance did not decline, 
"[her]  usual  out-going  demeanor  had  stopped  and  [she]  no  longer  spoke  to  anyone 
other than professionally prior to [receiving the page 7]."    
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
Counsel of the Coast Guard.  He recommended that the Board deny relief in this case. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  Article  5.H.4.  of  COMDTINST  M1020.8C 
(Allowable  Weight  Standard  for  the  Health  and  Well-Being  of  Coast  Guard  Military 
Personnel)  requires  that  any active duty enlisted member who exceeds the maximum 
allowable  weight  and  percent  body  fat  standards  at  the  end  of  the  member's 
probationary period shall be processed for separation.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel admitted that the applicant's CO applied an incorrect MAW 
during the applicant's last two probationary periods. The applicant's MAW was listed 
as 177 pounds when it should have been 186 pounds.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that when the applicant's CO decided to terminate her 
probationary  period,  which  began  on  XXXXXXXXXXX,  at  its mid-point, the applicant 
remained 30 pounds overweight using the correct MAW standard of 177 pounds.  He 
stated that the CO's decision to terminate the probationary period was not arbitrary and 
capricious because the applicant could not have lost the weight, at a medically safe rate, 
by  the  end  of  the  probationary  period.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  errors 
committed by the Coast Guard in calculating the applicant's MAW were harmless and 
do not rise to the level of unjust or unfair treatment.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  page  7  dated  XXXXXXXXXX,  was issued for 
the  purpose  of  notifying  the  applicant  that  her  CO  was  not  recommending  her 
advancement.    The  Chief  Counsel  agreed  with  the  comments  of  Commander,  Coast 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

8 

Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  with  respect  to  this  issue.    CGPC  stated,  in 
enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion, that "while it is good practice to verbally counsel 
member's on their performance during an evaluation period, it is not required to be  . . . 
documented."    CGPC  further  stated  that  the  "applicant  maybe  correct  that  she  was 
unaware  of  her  performance  problems,  but  she  presents  no  evidence  that  the 
information contained in the [page 7] is in error or unjust." 
 
 
treatment, CGPC offered the following: 
 

With respect to the applicant's contention that she did not receive proper medical 

The  record  contains  several  documents  showing  that  Applicant's 
condition was evaluated and monitored in connection with her placement 
on weight probation.  She was actually removed from the program for an 
8-week  period  so  she  could  adjust  to  new  medication  to  treat  her 
hyperthyroid  condition.    Per  the  Medical  Manual,  member's  suffering 
from  this  condition  may  be  retained in the Service if it responds well to 
medication  and  permits  the  members  to  perform  their  duties.    The 
applicant's record indicates that this was the case  . . . therefore she was 
not considered for disability separation . . . .  The record shows that her 
condition  probably  contributed  to  her  weight  gain,  but  the  record  also 
shows that her condition did not prevent her from losing weight, and that 
her condition was taken into account when determining her status in the 
weight program.   

 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant has misinterpreted block 15a of the 
DD  Form  214,  which  applies  to  VEAP  and  not  MGIB.    He  stated  that  because  the 
applicant had contributed to MGIB program and completed a minimum of three years 
of service, she has satisfied the requirements pertaining to MGIB benefits.   
 
Applicant's reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
applicant for a reply.  She did not submit a reply to the Coast Guard views.   

On  September  30,  2002,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  was  mailed  to  the 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  on  the 
 
basis  of  the  application,  the  Coast  Guard's  advisory  opinion,  the  applicant's  military 
record, and applicable law: 
 
 
the United Stated Code.  The application was timely.   
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

9 

 
2.   The applicant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by  discharging  her  from  the  Service 
due  to  her  failure  to  meet  the  weight  standards  required  by  COMDTINST  M120.8C.  
The Coast Guard incorrectly stated the applicant's MAW in both the XXXXXXXXXXX 
and the XXXXXXXXXXXX page 7s documenting her probationary status.  However, the 
Board  finds  that  this  error  did  not  prejudice  the  applicant.    Even  using  the  correct 
MAW, the applicant was 24 pounds over her MAW in XXXXXXXXXX and 37 pounds 
beyond  her  MAW  in  XXXXXXXXXX.    In  neither  of  these  instances  did  the  applicant 
show evidence that she came close to complying with the weight standards.  However 
after learning of the command's intent to discharge her, she appeared to put forth some 
real  effort  toward  losing  weight.   At the time of her discharge, she admitted that she 
was still 9 pounds beyond her MAW of 186 pounds.  Accordingly, the Board finds that 
the  applicant  would  have  failed  to  comply  with  the  weight  requirement  even  if  her 
correct MAW had been stated.   
 
 
3.  It was permissible for the applicant's CO to request her discharge at the mid-
point  of  her  probationary  period,  which  began  on  XXXXXXXXXXX.    Section  3.C.3  of 
COMDTINST M1020.8C gave CO's the authority to request the discharge of a member 
in  the  middle  of  a  probationary  period  if  the  member  was  not  making  reasonable 
progress  toward  the  weight  loss  goal.    At  the  time  he  requested  the  applicant's 
discharge, the CO stated that she had lost only 7 of the excess pounds and only 2% body 
fat.  Moreover, the applicant acknowledge by signing the XXXXXXXXXX page 7 entry 
that  she  was  required  to  lose  half  of  her  excess  weight  by  the  midpoint  of  the 
probationary period.  She did not meet this requirement and claimed that she was not 
aware of this requirement because she did not read the page 7 carefully before signing 
it.  She even admitted in her statement objecting to her discharge that she could have 
lost more weight than she had by that time.  The applicant complained that she was not 
notified  about  the  XXXXXXXXXX  probationary  period  until  XXXXXXXXXX  and  that 
losing  all  of  the  excess  weight  by  XXXXXXXXXXXX  would  be  medically  unsafe.  
However, the applicant has not shown that from February 1, 2001 until May 14, 2001 
she was losing weight at the medically recommended rate of four pounds per month.  
Counting from February 1, 2001 until May 14, 2001, the applicant could have safely lost 
14  pounds,  but  only  lost  7.    Under  the  circumstances presented here, the Board finds 
that the CO acted reasonably and in accordance with the regulation in requesting the 
applicant's discharge from the Coast Guard before the end of the probationary period.  
 
4.    The  applicant  blamed  her  inability  to  lose  weight  on  poor medical care she 
 
allegedly received for her doctors.  While it is true that more than one doctor treated the 
applicant,  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  prejudicial  to  her  situation.    She  was 
referred  to  a  medical  officer  before  being  placed  on  weight  probation.    None  of  the 
medical officers recommended against placing the applicant in a weight loss program 
or  stated  that  because  of  her  medical  conditions  it  was  impossible  for  her  to  comply 
with  weight  standards,  except  for  one  eight-week  period  in  which  she  was  removed 

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

10 

from weight probation to allow for the adjustment of her medication.  The applicant has 
not submitted any medical evidence to the contrary.  In XXXXXXXXX, the CO removed 
her from weight probation for eight weeks to allow her time to adjust to a new Thyroid 
medication.    Subsequently,  she  was  placed  back  on  the  weight  probation  with  her 
doctor's approval.  The Board finds that the applicant was not required to lose weight 
until  it  was  medically  appropriate  for  her  to  do  so.    Moreover,  it  is  not  unusual  for 
military members to be treated by more than one doctor due to the rotation of military 
personnel. 
 
 
5.  The applicant has failed to prove the CO committed an error or injustice by 
withdrawing  his  recommendation  for  her  advancement  to  the  next  pay  grade.    A 
recommendation  for  advancement  lies  within  the  discretion  of  the  CO.  There  is  no 
requirement  that  counseling  be  documented,  other  than  the  page  7  withdrawing  the 
recommendation.  See  Article  10-B-7-3  of  the  Personnel.    This  provision  also  requires 
that the CO to inform the applicant of the steps necessary to regain a recommendation 
for advancement.  The CO complied with this requirement.  
 
 
6.    As  an  E-6  with  over  nine  years  of  experience,  the  applicant  should  have 
inquired  about  and  been  tuned  into  the  expectations  of  her  supervisors.    She  has  not 
shown that the contents of the page 7 are in error.  Her statement that she discontinued 
her  usual  out  going  behavior  and  spoke  to  others  only  when  it  involved  work" 
corroborates  the  CO's  comments  in  the  page  7  that  she  lacked  motivation  in  and 
enthusiasm for her job. 
 
 
7.    The  applicant's  DD  Form  214  correctly  reflects  her  MGIB  information.    The 
Coast  Guard  indicated  that  she  contributed  to  the  plan  and  completed  the  necessary 
years of service to be eligible for benefits.   
 
 
 

8.  Accordingly, the applicant's request for relief should be denied.   

         Final Decision: No. 2002-073 
 

 

 

11 

ORDER 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, for correction of 

 
 

 
 

 
 
her military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
Astrid Lopez-Goldberg 

 

 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 
 
Kathryn Sinniger