Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06770-00
Original file (06770-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD  FOR   CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TRG
Docket No:
18 July 2001

6770-00

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

RECORD OF

(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 Navy filed enclosure
(1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to
show to show that he was not discharged on 21 February 1997 but
continued to serve on active duty.

The Board, consisting of Mr. Brezna, Mr. Dunn and Mr. Mackay,

2.
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
10 July 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by

The Board, having  

3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:

.reviewed all the facts of record pertaining

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,
waive the statute of limitations and review the application on
its merits.

it is in the interest of justice to

C .

Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 29 July 1994 for

Subsequently, he was advanced to BU2 (E-5).

three years.
February 1997 he was notified of separation processing by reason
In connection with this processing,
of weight control failure.
he elected to waive his right to have his case heard by an
After review, the discharge
administrative discharge board.
authority directed an honorable discharge by reason of weight
control failure.
was paid separation pay in the amount of  
he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4

He was so discharged on 21 February 1997 and

8,672.34.

On 13

At that time,

reenlistment code.

d.

Attached to enclosure (1) are advisory opinions from the

Navy Personnel Command which state that Petitioner failed to
meet body composition assessment standards on five occasions.
However, on the first two occasions he was not formally counseled
as required concerning the administrative consequences.of his
failure to meet standards and, therefore, those two assessments
should not be considered as failures.
conducted by a physician and not the  
and, therefore, this assessment should not count as a failure.
The fourth body composition assessment was invalid because it was
not conducted at least 48 hours prior to the physical readiness
test.
opinions conclude that since there is only one valid body
composition assessment, Petitioner does not meet the requirement
for three failures in a four year period and, therefore, he was
discharged in error.

The third assessment was
command fitness coordinator

The fifth assessment was considered valid.

The advisory

e.

The Board is aware that when a discharge is found to be

in error, an individual is only entitled to service until the
expiration of the enlistment on which he was serving at the time
of discharge. In this case,
Petitioner's three year enlistment
would have expired on 28 July 1997.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
The Board notes that Petitioner actually failed the body
fat composition standards but these failures cannot be counted as
such for technical reasons.
the Board agrees with the advisory opinions that Petitioner
should not have been discharged due to weight control failure on
21 February 1997.
Therefore, the record should be corrected to
show that he was not discharged on 21 February 1997 but continued
to serve on active duty until the expiration of his enlistment on
28 July 1997.
His discharge on that date should be considered to
be involuntary to prevent recoupment of the separation pay he
already has received.

However, given the circumstances,

Concerning the reenlistment code to be assigned, the Board
concludes that since the body composition assessments cannot be
used for discharge processing,
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
reenlistment code assigned on 28 July 1997 should be RE-1.
However, Petitioner will have to meet weight standards before
reenlistment will be authorized.

they cannot be used in the

Accordingly, the

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that

a.
he was not discharged on 21 February 1997 but continued to serve
until he was honorably discharged on 28 July 1997 at the
expiration of his enlistment with an RE-1 reenlistment code.
This discharge should be considered involuntary for the purposes
of payment of separation pay.

b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to
the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or completely
expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such entries or
material be added to the record in the future_

C . That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's
naval record be returned to the Board,
of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained
for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner's naval record.

together with this Report

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

4.
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

Acting Recorder

5.
Pursuant to the delegation of
6(e) of the revised Procedures of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a),
has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

authority set out in Section
the Board for Correction of
Regulations, Section 723.6(e))

Executive



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01853-02

    Original file (01853-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a enlisted member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show additional active service and that additional allowances and full separation pay be authorized. The Board considered an advisory opinion that concluded Petitioner was discharged in error. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he is entitled to full separation pay on 28 July 1997 vice the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02064-00

    Original file (02064-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. "has an alternate weight standard The fitness report 68" At that time, he...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600170

    Original file (MD0600170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant failed to meet the Marine Corps’ body composition standards and will receive a 6105 counseling entry and be processed for administrative separation.050210: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Failure to meet the Marine Corps body composition standards while assigned to the Marine Corps Body Composition Program (BCP) for the second time. ), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05597-08

    Original file (05597-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TIR Docket No: 5597-08 7 August 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD Oni ie... Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 ' (b) MARCORSEPMAN MCO P1900.16F USMC, Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary (3) Subject's naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07638-09

    Original file (07638-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 2010. On 24 July 2008, you were recommended for administrative separation due to weight control failure. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601151

    Original file (MD0601151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You have four months from this date to reduce your weight to 214 lbs, or below and/or reduce your body fat to 18% or below; however you may also raise your PFT to a first class score while maintaining 22% or less body fat percentage within the time period to be removed from the program. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: 20050615Basis for Discharge:WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURELeast Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Record Supports Narrative...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500755

    Original file (MD0500755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The basis for discharge is the Applicant's failure to meet standards for weight control and body fat composition. Commanding Officer's comments: "Based on Lance Corporal C_'s (Applicant's) failure to meet the Marine Corps Standards for weight control and body fat, it is requested that he be separated from the Marine Corps with a general discharge." The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10137-05

    Original file (10137-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100TRG Docket No: 10137-05 28 March 2007 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ggasi Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600722

    Original file (MD0600722.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Advised being assigned to the Weight Control Program as of 020207), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.020318: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (concerning unsatisfactory progress on weight control program. The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s diagnosis of Bilateral Quadriceps Tendonitis, failed to meet height and weight standards while on 2nd assignment to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059470C070421

    Original file (2001059470C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provided DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), dated 22 April 1999, which shows that she passed the APFT and her height was recorded as 69 inches and her weight was recorded as 214 pounds. However, evidence of record shows that the applicant failed to take the APFT for two consecutive years due to a medical profile (May 1996 to April 1997; and May 1997 to April 1998). After review of all evidence in this case, the Board determined that the applicant has not...