Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03167-02
Original file (03167-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

LCC: lc
Docket No: 3 167-02
24 September 2002

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session,
considered your application on 24 September 2002.
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. 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.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1000, MMEA, 9 September 2002, a copy of which is
attached.

Your allegations of error and injustice were

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in
the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.
You are entitled to have the 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. 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

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP

S

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22 134-S 10

3

IN REPLY REF

ER T O:

100
0
MMEA
9 Sep 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

Subj:

BCNR DOCKET

EPARATION PAY CASE OF

was denied

MC0 

We have carefully reviewed  

Sergean

request to be

The Marine was originally placed on a weight control program for

She was granted half separation pay in accordance with the
P1040.31,  Appendix

1.
granted full separation pay.
reenlistment on 18 December 2001 for failure to meet reenlistment
prerequisites, specifically Marine Corps height/weight/body fat
standards.
Enlisted Career Planning and Retention Manual,  
C.
the period from 10 December 1992 to
first child in June 1992.
Sergeant
April 1993 from a tubal pregnancy th
abdomen.
January 1994, and gave birth to a second child in September 1996.
July 2000, she underwent emergency surgery for a ruptured fallopian
tube resulting from another tubal pregnancy..
had to be removed.
time from 22 December 2000 until 19 January 2001.
for reenlistment consideration in November 2001, she was 23 pounds
overweight and two percent above the maximum body fat percentage for
Sergeant

Her left fallopian tube
The Marine was assigned to weight control a second
When she submitted

1993.
lost her second child in
ed surgery to her lower
cesarean section in

She successfully delivered a child by 

Therefore, she was denied reenlistment.

ines.
surgery for the ruptured fallopian tube occurred 17 months
last reenlistment request.

This was ample time for any

She miscarried her

In

Marine to recover from surgery and conform to Marine
height/weight/body fat standards.
weight control in January 2001, but was  
again at the time
she submitted her reenlistment request 11 months later with no further
pregnancy or medical issues.
This headquarters stands by the original
determination of half separation pay.

Corps
as taken off

overwelg

Sergeant

2.

Point of contact is Capt

N 278-9240.

Enlisted Assignments

c":



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020883

    Original file (20120020883.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DA Form 1059, dated 26 November 2008, shows the applicant achieved BOLC standards with an average test score of 76 percent. The records reviewed by the selection board showed he had not completed the required civilian and/or military education by the day before the date the promotion board convened on 2 November 2010. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides: a. effective 1 October 1995, that no person may be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063197C070421

    Original file (2001063197C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Army Regulation 140-111 establishes the policies and provisions for imposing bars to reenlistment for members of the AGR program under the QMP. Since all three of those reports, however, show that she met the height and weight standards of the regulation, the absence of the required remark is considered an oversight and does not reflect the true nature of her physical fitness. Her NCOERs for the periods in question show that she had a profile and consequently could not take the APFT.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03521-00

    Original file (03521-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Reference (a) requests an advisory opinion on former Sergeant equest to have his records corrected to show that he was not discharged from the Marine Corps on 27 May 1999, and to further show that he is retired by reason of physical disability. MMEA concurs with the recommendation made by Mrs. Jr., Head, Separation...

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02678

    Original file (BC-2004-02678.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 Mar 03, she was placed on a deferment due to a medical condition; as a result, the Feb 03 weight was excused. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts the medical deferment expired in Jun 03 without a firm diagnosis being given. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.

  • CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2002-073

    Original file (2002-073.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00237

    Original file (MD04-00237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Nevertheless I never received the response until the day my punishment was completed, and the appeal had been singed and dated 3 days after my appeal was submitted. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501041

    Original file (MD0501041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. rd time on weight control. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07502-97

    Original file (07502-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.