DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2011-213
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FINAL DECISION
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 Chair docketed the application upon
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on July 16, 2011, and subsequently prepared the
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated April 19, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by removing an administrative
remarks page (page7) dated May 6, 2010, that documented her non-compliance with the Coast
Guard’s weight standards and her placement on weight probation. The page 7 also directed her
to lose all excess weight by October 20, 2010. The applicant also requested the removal of the
following related page 7s:
The page 7 dated May 20, 2010 listing several goals the command expected her to meet
during the weight probationary period.
The page 7 dated June 18, 2010, requiring her to document weekly weigh-ins.
The page 7 dated October 20, 2010, documenting her successful completion of her
weight probationary period.
Last, the applicant asked that the mark of 3 she received in “health and well-being” on
her enlisted performance review (EER) for the period ending September 30, 2010 be raised to 4.
With regard to the May 6, 2010 page 7, the applicant alleged that her command violated
the Coast Guard Weight and Body Fat Standards Program Manual (Weight Program Manual) by
placing her on weight probation before a medical official had determined that she could safely
lose weight and/or participate in physical fitness activities. She was medically cleared for weight
loss on May 13, 2010. In this regard, she stated that Article 3.2.1 of the Weigh Program Manual
states “A probationary weight loss period shall not commence until the member has completed
their medical referral and it has been determined that they can safely lose weight and/or
participate in fitness activities.”
With regard to the May 20, 2010 and June 18, 2010 page 7s, the applicant argued that
they should be removed because they are related to the improperly prepared May 6, 2010 page 7
and because they were not prepared in compliance with the Personnel and Pay and Procedures
Manual. In this regard, she argued that although ”performance and discipline” was stated as the
reason for issuance of the page 7s, neither page 7 commended nor disciplined her for any act.
Instead the page 7s provided her with the command’s “list of expectations that she was expected
to meet while on probation.” She alleged that neither page 7 was signed by the CO as required
by the Personnel and Pay and Procedures Manual.
In conclusion, the applicant argued that her record should be cleared of all evidence
documenting that she was placed on weight probation from May 6, 2010 to October 20, 2010
because the page 7s were not prepared in accordance with the Weight Program Manual and/or
the Personnel and Pay Procedures Manual. She argued that if the weight probationary period
documentation is removed from her record, the mark of 3 in health and well-being on her EER
for the period ending September 30, 2010 should also be removed.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On October 28, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief in accordance with a
memorandum submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).
PSC did not recommend the removal of the May 6, 2010 page 7 that documented the
applicant non-compliance with the Coast Guard’s weight standards and her placement on weight
probation. Instead, PSC recommended that the May 6, 2010 date be corrected to May 13, 2010,
the date the applicant was medically cleared for weight loss. In this regard, PSC stated that
Article 3.2.1 of the Weight Program Manual requires that a member who exceeds their maximum
allowable weight be placed on weight probation, but the probationary period cannot commence
until the member has been cleared by a medical official that the weight can be lost in a safe
manner.
With regard to the May 20, 2010 and June 18, 2010 page 7s, PSC recommended that they
be removed from the applicant’s record. PSC stated that the Weight Program Manual does not
specifically prohibit units from documenting expectations or progress during weight
probationary periods. However, in this case, “it was disclosed to [PSC] that the applicant’s
command did not follow this practice for any other member of the command regarding their
weight probationary periods. Therefore, PSC recommended removal the May 20 and June 18,
2010 page 7s.
PSC stated that the page 7 dated October 20, 2010 documenting the applicant’s successful
completion of weight probation should not be removed from her military record because it is
required by the Weight Program Manual. Nor did PSC recommend removing the mark of 3 in
Health and Well Being on the applicant’s September 30, 2010 EER. PSC stated that the
applicant has not provided any evidence to show this mark is inaccurate for the period in
question.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
applicant for a response. The Board did not receive a reply from the applicant.
On November 2, 2011, the Board sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's
1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law:
of the United States Code. The application was timely.
2. The May 6, 2010 page 7 was signed by the CO and documented the applicant’s
noncompliance with the Coast Guard’s weight standards. The page 7 also noted that the applicant
was placed on weight probation and ordered to comply with weight standards by October 20,
2010. The page 7 was prepared before medical personnel verified that the applicant could safely
lose the weight and/or participate in physical activities. Article 3.2.1 of the Weight Program
Manual states “A probationary weight loss period shall not commence until the member has
completed their medical referral and it has been determined that they can safely lose weight
and/or participate in fitness activities.” The applicant was cleared by medical personnel on May
13, 2010. The page 7 documenting her non-compliance with weight standards and placing her
on weight probation should have been dated May 13, 2010. The Coast Guard has acknowledged
the error and recommended that the date on the page 7 be corrected from May 6, 2010 to May
13, 2010. The Board agrees with this recommendation. The Coast Guard committed an
administrative error by preparing the page 7 before medical personnel verified that the applicant
could safely lose the weight. However, it is not in dispute that the applicant was non-compliant
with weight standards and that the regulation required her command to place her on weight
probation. Therefore, the Board will direct the Coast Guard to correct the date on the May 6,
2010 page 7 to May 13, 2010.
3. The Board also agrees with the JAG that the page 7s dated May 20, 2010 and June 18
2010 should be removed from the applicant’s record. In this regard, the Board notes that
although the Weight Program Manual does not prohibit such page 7s, the applicant’s command
did not prepare similar page 7s for any other members of the command who were placed on
weight probation. Nor is there an explanation for why the applicant was treated differently.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the May 20, 2010 and June 18, 2010 page 7s are unjust under
the circumstances and should be removed. The Board reaches no decision on whether it was an
error for the applicant’s department head to sign the page 7s, since both the Coast Guard and
Board find they should be removed on other grounds.
4. The page 7 dated October 20, 2010, documenting the applicant’s successful
completion of weight probation and her compliance with the Coast Guard’s weight requirements
is properly in her record. Article 3.2.12 of the Weight Program Manual requires that a page 7
shall be prepared by a member’s command upon the completion of the weight probationary
period. This page 7 is signed by the CO.
5. The applicant has presented no evidence that the mark of 3 in health and well-being on
her EER for the period ending September 30, 2010 is erroneous. The Board notes that for this
reporting period the applicant was, in fact, in violation of the Coast Guard’s weight requirements.
Therefore, the mark of 3 should not be removed from the EER.
6. Accordingly, the applicant should be granted the partial relief discussed above.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
ORDER
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, for correction of her military
record is granted in part, as follows:
The date on the May 6, 2010 page 7 regarding the applicant’s non-compliance
with the Coast Guard’s weight requirement shall be corrected to May 13, 2010.
The related page 7s dated May 20, 2010 and June 18, 2010 that reference the
applicant’s non-compliance with the Coast Guard’s weight requirement on May 6,
2010 shall be removed from her record.
No other relief is granted.
Anthony C. DeFelice
Megan Gemunder
Patrick B. Kernan
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-140
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. 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. the evidence that the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-140
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. 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. the evidence that the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-036
A Reserve officer to whom this section applies is not considered to have failed of selection when eliminated from a list of selectees for promotion solely as a result of being removed from an active status.” 14 USC § 734(a) states: “A Reserve officer shall not be promoted to a higher grade unless the officer has been found to be physical qualified and the character of the officer’s service subsequent to the convening of the selection board which recommended the officer for promotion has been...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-238
On September 26, 2000, the applicant’s CO advised her in a letter that he would be rec- ommending her discharge from the Coast Guard for weight control failure. The PSC stated that the applicant was dis- charged due to weight control failure when she had 19 years, 2 months, and 5 days of active duty. states that members not in compliance with MAW and body fat standards “shall be referred to a medical officer or local physician, who shall make a recommendation to the command as to the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-174
Therefore, the Board finds that, had she not been erroneously discharged on December 2, 2009, the applicant would have been able to request to transfer back to the Ready Reserve in accordance with Chapter 3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G because she met the body fat standard prescribed in the Page 7 before the expiration of her year on the ISL. Thus, PSC’s recommendation for relief does not put the appli- cant back in the position she would have been in had the Coast Guard not erroneously...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2002-073
The applicant was placed on weight probation for a period of 12 months and was expected to lose the excess weight within that period. The Coast Guard incorrectly stated the applicant's MAW in both the XXXXXXXXXXX and the XXXXXXXXXXXX page 7s documenting her probationary status. 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...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2010-224
The IMB reported on June 12, 1996, that the applicant had been “placed on the weight program and given intermittent Progesterone ther- apy for amenorrhea secondary to Polycystic Ovary Disease.” The IMB stated that she was fit for full duty despite her obesity and polycystic ovarian disease and that the “prognosis for this patient will depend on the vigor with which she pursues weight control because Polycystic Ovary Disease is associated with and thought to cause over weight.” The IMB stated...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-072
He stated that his health and weight loss records clearly prove that if his condition had been timely diagnosed and treated, he would have been in compliance with the Coast Guard’s fitness standards in time to be advanced on September 1, 2006. He alleged that it should be removed because (a) Dr. R told him that, because of his PTSD and medications, a weight-loss program “would be detrimental to my recovery”; (b) two of his PTSD medications, Effexor and Nortrip- tyline, caused his weight...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-127
Screening [MAW]. states that members exceeding their weight and fat standards shall be placed on probation to lose the excess weight and fat. It further states the following.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-054
command an email stating that he had measured the applicant at 23% body fat. The applicant was medically cleared for weight probation on April 13, 2005, with a weight of 259 pounds and 33% body fat. Although the applicant alleged that his discharge was based on the results of the hydrostatic testing, whereas COMDTINST M1020.8E mandates measurement by tape, the discharge orders issued on August 30, 2005, were clearly based on the weight and tape-measure body fat measurements made near the...