DEPARTMENT OF

TH5 NAVY
CORRECTI N OF NAVAL RECORD

 

BOARD FOR

 

S

2 NAV Y

%

NNE X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0 TRG

Docket No:
16 May 2001
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

2064-00 

.

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

(1) Case Summary
(2) Subject's naval record

,

From:
To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a

1.
former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps
submitted an application to this Board requesting that his record
be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 15 April 1998
but was retained in the Marine Corps until he qualified to
retire.

The Board, consisting of Mr. Zsalman, Mr. Chapman and Mr.

2.
Whitener, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 1 May 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining

Documentary material

a.

Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all

administrative remedies available
regulations within the Department

under existing law and
of the Navy.

b.

Petitioner's application

was filed in a timely manner.

C .

Petitioner reenlisted in

the Marine Corps on 16 November
The fitness report for the period 25 August 1995 to

1991 for six years and on 1 September 1994 he was promoted to
GYSGT (E-7).
22 March 1996 reflects outstanding performance of duty, and he
was strongly recommended for retention and promotion to first
sergeant.
67" tall and he was "within
alternative weight standards of 225  
for the period ending 31 October 1996 indicates that he was
tall, weighed 238 pounds, and 
of 225 pounds."

"has an alternate weight standard

The fitness report
68"

At that time, he was 

pounds.1V

 

d.

Petitioner has submitted a copy of a reenlistment

command,

'dated 26 October 1997, which

recommendation from his
indicates that his body fat was 18%.
A message from Headquarters
Marine Corps, dated 27 October 1997, authorized his reenlistment
for three years if he was still qualified.
for the period 1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997, although it
reflects outstanding performance of duty,
is adverse because it
states that Petitioner was
"(n)ot recommended for reenlistment.
(His) height is 68 inches, weight is 224 pounds, body fat is 24%
and is not within established standards."
stated as follows:

The reviewing officer

The fitness report

Despite multiple warnings regarding his weight, (he)
has failed to meet established goals.
multiple counseling sessions with the  
GySgt to no
While an outstanding instructor and mentor,
avail.
(he) has not met the standards set by HQMC. Despite
his great leadership skills, excellent professional
knowledge and infectious enthusiasm, (he) cannot be
recommended for reenlistment or promotion.
the Reporting Senior in his evaluation.

His OIC has had

Concur with

.

Since Petitioner's expiration of enlistment was 15
Petitioner was then granted four short term

in/order to appeal the decision not to allow

Novser 1997
extensions 
reenlistment, and for transition purposes.
The fitness report
for the period 1 November 1997 to 15 March 1998 indicates he was
not recommended for reenlistment.
the percent of body fat is illegible.
for the period ending 15 April 1998,
indicates that he weighed
235 pounds and his body fat was 24% and that he "exceeds Marine
Corps weight standards."
to the fitness report  

His weight was 235 pounds but
The final fitness report,

Petitioner made a statement in rebuttal

,stating, in part, as follows:

. 

. The body fat standard doesn't fit everyone and
. 
there are people who are exceptions to the rule. I
consider myself to be one of those people. . . . . how can
you release a Marine with an outstanding record. . . .
I've lifted weights from the time I set foot on my
first duty station  
. Their (sic) was a time in the
Corps when I was a young Marine and I had to carry my
load.
equipment needed for the mission. Lifting
me the strength to do so.

Meaning my pack and all the communication

weights gave

. . . 

I suppose in todays Corps we want Marines
the fight looking pretty, but can't carry
fight with.

who come to
anything to

f.

Petitioner was honorably discharged on 15 April 1998, at

the expiration of his enlistment as extended.

The type of

2

.,

6203.2", 

authority,4 separation code and narrative
"MARCORSEPMAN

discharge, separation 
reason for separation were "physical standards",  
Par 
established directive", respectively.
for reenlistment and his discharge was involuntary, he was paid
one half separation pay.
At that time of discharge he had
completed 17 years, 8 months and 2 days of active service.

"JFTl", and "Involuntary discharge, directed by

Since he was not qualified

g.

Petitioner states in his application that as he was

waiting to reenlist, the Navy commander who was his reporting
senior became aware of an inspection report in which he was
"flaggedVV as not making progress on weight control.
reevaluated under the new weight control directive and found not
qualified for reenlistment.
He states he was allowed to present
his case for reenlistment to a Marine Corps general, who gave him
45 days to reach the weight standards.
standards but his reenlistment was denied by HQMC.

He states that he met the

He was then

h.

Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from

Headquarters Marine Corps which states, in part, as follows:

. 

. 

(ALMAR 

326/97) allowed

Ott 97)

(T)he BCNR

Reference (a)  

Ott 97) and subsequent HQMC approval (27 

. (Petitioner's) assignment to weight control should

. 
have resulted in disapproval of his request for
reenlistment, particularly if this request was
submitted prior to 1 October 1997. . . . 
application indicates a command reenlistment request
(22 
for reenlistment.
a Marine to be within body composition standards if
body fat standards were met,
being exceeded.
commands to
assignments and remove Marines from the program if they
were found to be within body fat standards.
Confusion
rests with (Petitioner's) statement that he was re-
evaluated and exceeded height/weight/body fat standards
of 22-23%.
body fat as 18%.
standards after 1 
(MC0 
would have been in effect, and therefore, would have
placed the Marine above established body fat standards.

If SNM was re-evaluated for body fat
Ott 97 change(s) to reference (b)
6100.10B, Weight Control and Military Appearance)

Additionally, reference (a) permitted

However, his reenlistment request  

"re-evaluate" their weight control

despite weight standards

lists, his

. ..(Petitioner) identified a
for changes to reference (b).
improved accuracy of the four-compartment analysis body
fat computations enacted per reference (a), it was
determined that a grace period was unwarranted since
the 
more precise.

"newVV standards were viewed as less restrictive and

With the exception of the 22  

"lack of time to prepare"

However, due to the

Ott 97

3

ther& is no additional

ffreenlistment  request"
information to suggest that (Petitioner) was ever
This fact begs the
within the 18% body fat standard.
question as to how a Marine could be at 18% in October,
and within one month, measured at 22-23%. There is no
record of SNM having been on a previous alternate
weight waiver, and with a body weight of 225 pounds, he
was 44 pounds over the maximum allowable weight.

. 

. Colonel 

(T's) refusal to allow a  

. 
weighing" of (Petitioner) to attain an alternate body
fat evaluation was correct.
Instruction 1308.1, Physical   Fitness and Body Fat
Program, the services can only utilize the
tape/circumference method for measuring body fat.
fat analysis is only to be used when a service member
exceeds the initial weight for height screen.

According to  

flhydrostatic

DOD

Body

i.

Also attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion

HQMC which recommends that

DUTY" (block 23); the separation

form the Separation Retirement Branch,
the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed
to "NON-RETENTION ON ACTIVE  
authority be changed to  
separation code be changed to  
Reason for Separation be changed to
further 
page 6 of the MARCORSEPMAN sets forth the entries that can be
made in block 23 of the DD Form 214.
included "NON-RETENTION ON ACTIVE  
fits the circumstances of Petitioner's case is the word
"Dischargedff.

- no
The Board is aware that appendix B,

"JGH2" (block 26); and Narrative

"Involuntary discharge  

1005ff (block 25); the

servicefV  (block 28).

Those entries do not

The only entry that

?4ARCORSEPMAN  Par 

DUTY".

j.

he has developed a large

He has provided evidence that contrary to the

Petitioner states in his rebuttal to the advisory
opinion that because he was body building and power lifting
throughout his Marine Corps career,
muscle mass.
statement in the advisory opinion, he was issued an alternative
weight standard.
letter from his commanding officer which indicates that he was
68" tall
I weighed 215 pounds and his maximum weight was 181
pounds.
It noted that he was within the alternate standards of
18% body fat due to the high volume of lean muscle mass and low
percentage of body fat.
17.5" and he had scored 1st class on his PFT.
neck was 
letter granted him an alternative weight of 217 pounds.

It also noted that his waist was  

He has submitted a copy of a 24 September 1991

38", his

The
He has
also submitted a copy of an authorization from his commanding
officer, dated 15 December 1995, granting him an alternate weight
He points outs that these factors and
of 225 pounds.
outstanding performance of duty mean that he was well
for reenlistment.

his
qualified

4

4

k.

The Board is aware that regulations allow for the

payment of one half separation pay if an individual is not fully
qualified for reenlistment.
However, the Secretary of the Navy
may authorize full separation pay in deserving cases.

Had Petitioner attained 18 years of active service 10

1.
U.S.C. 
extended in order for him to complete 20 years of active service.

§ 1176(a) would have required that his enlistment be

m.

The Board is also aware that the Temporary Early

Retirement Authority (TERA) was never implemented by the Marine
Corps but the statutory authority to grant early retirement
existed at the time of Petitioner's separation and exists now.
The Board is aware that in one other case a recommendation by
this Board for retirement under TERA for a former Marine was
approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
that 
TERA has been used extensively by the Navy.

The Board notes

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

The

However, the majority also notes Petitioner's many

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
majority, consisting of Mr. Zsalman and Mr. Chapman, concludes
that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action.
majority notes that the Marine Corps has the authority to deny
reenlistment to individuals who do not meet the weight standards.
Further, it is clear that when discharged, Petitioner's weight of
235 pounds exceeded even the most liberal alternative weight
standard.
years of excellent service,
and apparently could not meet the weight standards, at least in
large part, because of his muscle mass.
Accordingly, the
majority concludes that in this case an exception to policy
should be made and the payment of full separation pay should be
authorized.
to Petitioner's DD Form 214 should be made in order to more
accurately reflect the fact that reenlistment was denied because
of his failure to meet standards.
are slightly different from those recommended in the advisory
opinion.
make Petitioner eligible for retirement or early retirement under
TERA, but concludes that the facts of this case do not warrant
such extraordinary relief.

The majority considered a correction to the record to

The majority also concludes that certain corrections

the fact that he was physically fit

As indicated, the corrections

The majority further concludes that this Report of Proceedings
should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future
reviewers will understand the reason for payment of full
separation pay.

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

+

.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show
zn 15 April 1998 he was paid full separation pay vice the

that 
one half separation pay now of record.

b.

That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected by

changing blocks 23, 25, 26 and 28 on his DD Form 214 to
"DISCHRAGED", MARCORSEPMAN Par 1005,
discharge

- No further service", respectively.

"JGH2" and  

ffInvoluntary

C .

That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in

Petitioner's naval record.

d.

That the remainder of his requests be denied.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

his many years of weight

The minority notes Petitioner's

Mr. Whitener disagrees with the majority and concludes
that
_
Petitioner's request warrants more favorable action than that
recommended by the majority.
many years of outstanding service,
lifting and the fact that he was granted alternative weight
standards for several years.
had attained 18 years of active service, his retention to 20
years of active service would have been required.
circumstances, he believes that equity requires that Petitioner
be retired under the provisions of TERA as an exception to
policy.
of the month, the record should be corrected to show that he
extended his enlistment for the minimum period of one month and
that on 1 May 1998 he then transferred to the Fleet Marine Corps
Reserve under the provisions of TERA.

Therefore, because retirements must occur on the first

He also notes that if Petitioner

Given the

The minority also concludes that this Report of Proceedings
should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future
reviewers will understand his retirement under  

TERA.

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he

a.
extended his enlistment for one month and that he was then
retired or transferred to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve under
the provisions of TERA effective 1 May 1998.

That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in

b.
Petitioner's naval record.
4.

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's

6

_’

‘c

and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

.’

ROBERT D.  
Recorder

ZSALMAN

fl*z_

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Acting Recorder

The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your

5.
review and action.

MAJORITY REPORT
Reviewed and approved:

A

MINORITY REPORT
Reviewed and approved:

7