DEPARTMENT OF THE I~AVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS




                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                                WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG
                                                      Docket No: 6312-00
                                                      6 April 2001

      From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
      To:   Secretary of the Navy

      Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ~


      Ref:  (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

      End:  (1) Case Summary
              (2)      Subject’s naval record

      1.    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an
      enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve applied to this
      Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better
      characterization of service than the separation under honorable
      conditions and that her reenlistment code be changed.

      2.    The Board, consisting of Mr. Tew, Mr. Leeman and Ms. LeBlanc,
      reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 27 March
      2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective
      action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of
      record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
      enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and
      policies.

      3.    The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to
      Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

           a.     Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
      administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
      within the Department of the Navy.

           b.     Although it appears that Petitioner’s application was not
      filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive
      the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

           c.     Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve for eight years
      on 11 February 1994 at age 17 and reported for three years of active
      duty on 6 July 1994. Her Enlisted Performance Record (Page 9) shows
      that she reported to the USS FRANK CABLE (AS 40) on 10 October 1994.
      The page 9 shows that she received an overall evaluation of 3.8 for
      the evaluation period 10 October 1994 to 31 January 1995. She was
      advanced to SA (E-2) on 16 April 1995 and to SN (E-3) on 16 January
      1996. There are no further entries on the page 9 and no performance
      evaluations are filed in the record.
      d.    Petitioner’s record shows that beginning in March 1995
and continuing until October 1996 she passed the physical fitness
portion of the Physical Readiness Test (PRT) but was considered a
PRT failure because she exceeded the 30% body fat allowed for
females. On 10 October 1996, she was 5’7” tall, weighed 183
pounds and her body fat percentage was 37%.

      e.    On 23 November 1996 Petitioner was notified of separation
processing by reason of weight control failure. In connection with this
processing, she elected to waive her procedural rights. After review, the
discharge authority directed separation with the characterization of
service warranted by her service record. She was released from active duty
on 9 January 1997 with her service characterized as being under honorable
conditions. At that time, she was assigned an RE-3T reenlistment code.

      f.    The Board is aware that when an individual is discharged or
released from active duty due to weight control failure, the
characterization of service is the type warranted by the service record.
The characterization of service is based on marks assigned during periodic
evaluations. Since she was released from active duty and not discharged,
her service was characterized as being under honorable conditions. If she
had been discharged she would have been issued a general discharge.

      g.    The Board is also aware that regulations require the assignment
of an RE-3T or an RE-4 when an individual is separated because of weight
control failure.

      h.    Petitioner states in her application that she is being denied
Montgomery G. I. Bill benefits (MGIB) because her service has not been
characterized as being honorable. She states that she has lost weight and
has affiliated with a reserve unit. The commanding officer of the reserve
unit states that she is performing in an excellent manner and highly
recommends that the characterization of her service be changed to
honorable.

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board’s
majority, consisting of Mr. Tew and Ms. LeBlanc, concludes that
Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The majority notes that
there are no performance evaluations in the record after 31 January 1995.
However, she was promoted on two occasions after that date, most recently
on 16 January 1996, which indicates that her performance of duty during
that period was satisfactory. In addition, the Board notes that she was not
discharged on 9 January 1997 as is usually the case, but released


                                      2
from active duty to complete her military obligation, which certainly would
not have been done if there was a record of poor performance or misconduct.
Finally, the Board notes that she was assigned the least restrictive
reenlistment code authorized by the regulations, which also suggests that
she was a good performer. In view of the foregoing, the Board believes that
her service was characterized as being under honorable conditions solely
because of low marks assigned because of her weight problems. Given the
evidence which suggests that her record was otherwise satisfactory and the
evidence of her current excellent service in the Naval Reserve, the
majority does not believe that she should be denied her MGIB benefits or
have her service stigmatized as being less than fully honorable. Therefore,
the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show that her
service was characterized as honorable on her release from active duty on 9
January 1997 vice the characterization of under honorable conditions now of
record.

Concerning the reenlistment code, the majority notes that she did have a
weight problem which led to her separation and that she has been assigned
the least restrictive reenlistment code authorized by the regulations.
Therefore, the majority concludes that a change in the reenlistment code is
not warranted.

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

      a.    That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that her
service was characterized as honorable on her release from active duty on 9
January 1997 vice the characterized of under honorable conditions actually
assigned on that date.

      b.    That Petitioner’s request for a change in the reenlistment code
be denied.

      c.    That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

Mr. Leeman disagrees with the majority and concludes that Petitioner’s
request does not warrant favorable action. He notes that there are no
performance evaluations available after 31 January 1995, and one can only
speculate as to her performance and conduct after that date. In addition,
he notes that Petitioner was on notice as early as March 1995 that she had
to lose weight in order to remain on active duty, but she apparently made
no effort to do so. In view of the foregoing, the minority finds no
injustice warranting dorrective action.




                                      3
MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s request be denied.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and
deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the
Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.



ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
                                  Recorder

5. The foregoing report of review and action.






MAJORITY REPORT:
Reviewed and approved:
C—
MINOR REPORT:
      and approved:
/
                               ALAN E. GOLDSMI
                               Acting Recorder

the Board is submitted for your
S
 JOSEPH G. LYNCH
  Assistant General Counsel MAY 162001 (Manpower And Reserve Affairs)
4
W.    DEAN
)