DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
TRG
Docket No: 5569-01
12 December 2001
Dear-
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the United
States Code section 1552.
sitting in executive session, considered your
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records,
application on 11 December 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your application,
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together with all material submitted in support
Your allegations of error and
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You reenlisted in the Navy for four years on 19 July 1993. At
that time you had completed more than eight years of active duty.
In addition you had failed the body fat standards on two
occasions.
standards on four additional occasions.
failure, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for missing 10
out of 15 mandatory physical training sessions.
Subsequently, you failed to meet the body fat
Following the third
Based on your failure to meet the weight standards, you were
processed for an administrative discharge.
this processing, you elected to waive your right to have your
case heard by an administrative discharge board.
1995, the commanding officer directed an honorable discharge
stating, in part, as follows:
In connection with
On 29 March
Not only had (he) made no improvement, he
(He) has had a documented weight control problem since
1992.
continues to increase in weight and body fat.
at counseling and nonjudicial punishment have not
Finally, (he) presented a
resolved the problem.
Attempts
statement that he voluntarily does not desire to
participate in a remedial fitness program. . . . .
In the performance evaluation for the period 26 January 1994 to
31 March 1995, you were assigned adverse marks of 2.6 in the
categories of military bearing and personal behavior.
not recommended for advancement but were recommended for
retention in the Navy.
as follows:
The evaluation comments state, in part,
You were
. excellent Machinist Mate who consistently displays
CO's NJP
.
superlative performance . . . .
and his failure to comply with the Navy's body fat
standards
. he is not recommended for advancement.
However, due to
.
.
. .
You were honorably discharged on 15 April 1995 by reason of
weight control failure.
reenlistment code.
At that time you were assigned an RR-4
You state in your application that since discharge you have
attended weight management and nutrition courses and are now
within weight standards.
code so you can reenlist and complete your career.
You desire a change in the reenlistment
The Board also noted the NJP for
In reaching its decision, the Board noted the comments contained
in the commanding officer's letter directing your discharge to
the effect that your weight was increasing and you declined to
make any effort to lose weight.
failing to participate in mandatory physical training sessions,
which supports the comments that you were not making a sufficient
effort to lose weight.
Finally, the Board noted the adverse
marks in two categories in the last performance evaluation and
The Board
that you were not recommended for advancement.
believed that despite the excellent comments concerning your
performance of duty, the adverse marks and comments meant that a
recommendation for retention was inappropriate and may have been
The Board concludes that the record supports the
made in error.
assignment of the RR-4 reenlistment code and no change is
warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
2
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07502-97
Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00245
ND03-00245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason changed to Retired. Symptom – Pt stated history of active duty weight control. Under current standards, the Board found that the Applicant would not have been administratively separated by reason of weight control failure.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901895
The NDRB determined the Applicant was not separated for medical reasons but for failure to meet assigned weight and body fat standards.The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 to 31 August 2001, however, does allow for an Honorable discharge for servicemembers separated for unsatisfactory performance (paragraph 6206).After a review of the Applicant’s service record, the NDRB did find that his service met the standard for honorable conduct. ...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0116
PEKSUONAL APPEARANCE _| X RECORD REVIEW NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION * ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL MEMBERS SITTING ae, PT {ISSUES INDEX NUMBER BITS SUBMITE DAR A94.06, A93.10 A67.10 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE — 3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE ° 02-08-15 FD2002-0116 COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF ™ PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02656
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02656 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4B be changed. While the applicant did meet weight standards on 27 Apr 98, she exceeded her body fat standard by one percent. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501243
Furthermore advised that failure to show significant progress towards meeting Navy’s body fat standards, failure to achieve body fat standards during the 12-month aftercare period, or failure to maintain standards thereafter shall result in consideration for separation from the naval service.931108: Administrative remarks from Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA to EN2 C_ (Applicant). SNM is able to do PRT without any problems. Additionally, i n the Applicant’s case the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). A medical evaluation, diet counseling(s), 90-day exercise program, and monthly checks are provided as rehabilitative support for individuals who exceed weight and body fat standards. The Interim Message Change (IMC) 93-1, to AFR 35-1 1, 5 Feb 91, was not effective until 30 Jun 93.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11234-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 5 February 1982 for six years. However, the next two evaluations...
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...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0094
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pp002-0094 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. While an honorable discharge is the most serious service characterization that can be given in a failure to meet standards discharge under the Weight and Body Fat Management Program, the fac eats also being discharged for Minor Disciplinary Infractions allow for a less favorable service characterization. Weight and Body Fat Management Program...