Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11234-06
Original file (11234-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


        
         TRG
          Docket No:11234-06
        26 March 2008

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 18 March 2008. Your allegations of error and injustice were 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.
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. At that time, you had completed eight years of active service on two prior enlistments. During the period from 1 January 1983 to 30 November 1987, you were evaluated on four occasions. Each of the evaluations show that you always performed your duties in an excellent manner, further on 29 July 1984 you were awarded the Navy Achievement Medal.
Your lowest percentage of body fat reflected in the evaluations was 26.5% and the highest was 30%. The evaluation for the period 1 April 1984 to 31 May 1985 states that you had failed the physical fitness test because of a weight problem and that you had attended weight reduction school in December 1984. It is noted that you had lost 40 pounds and were continuing to lose weight. Consequently, you were recommended for advancement and retention in the Navy. On 16 September 1985 you were advanced to petty officer first class. However, the next two evaluations indicate that you had gained weight and were not recommended for advancement or retention in the Navy. You were honorably discharged at the expiration of your enlistment on 4 February 1998. At that time, you were assigned a restrictive RE-3T reenlistment code which means that you were recommended for reenlistment except for the disqualifying factor of your failure to meet the weight standards.
 In your application, your counsel notes that you performed in an excellent manner in the Navy for 14 years. He contended that you would not have been denied reenlistment if you were currently in the Navy. He also pointed out that at the time of your discharge, there was no provision for separation pay or early retirement and it is unjust to deny a dedicated Sailor some compensation for his many years of good service. Therefore, he requested that the record be corrected to show reserve service after 4 February 1988 until you qualified for reserve retirement at age 60. Counsel contends that in the current environment you would have been given ample opportunity to conform to the new weight standards and that it is unjust to deny you further service.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your 14 years of excellent service. However, it is clear that you were on notice that you would be denied reenlistment if you did not meet the weight standards. Further, you were sent to a weight reduction class and were certainly aware of what was required to lose weight but after a period of weight loss you returned to your original overweight status. The Board also noted that you received the least restrictive reenlistment code possible in your situation and that you could have applied for reenlistment at any time after discharge if you had been able to meet the weight standards. Since you were treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and that a correction to the record to show additional service is not warranted.
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05569-01

    Original file (05569-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00245

    Original file (ND03-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06382-07

    Original file (06382-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. December 1984 to 3 May 1985, which was submitted on the occasion of your separation, states that you were not recommended for advancement or retention due to an increase in your weight physical qualifications. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10920-07

    Original file (10920-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When you were informed of the command's intent to deny your reenlistment you appealed that denial to the Navy Personnel Command. 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. As denial of reenlistment requests are not considered administrative processing, the member would not have had the opportunity to elect an administrative board.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00143-10

    Original file (00143-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN Docket No: 00143-10 13 October 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TO: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Cr QR USY, Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a Former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in her RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10627-07

    Original file (10627-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. You reenlisted in the Navy on 22 March 1985 for four years. 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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00605

    Original file (MD02-00605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An honorable discharge is required to pursue this career and be a productive citizen.I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.Sincerely, Documentation In addition to the service record (there was no discharge package available), the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214Copy of article from newspaper Medical records (9 pages)Record of proficiency and conduct markings dated 10/06/99 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00524

    Original file (MD99-00524.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    941011: Counseled concerning deficiency (unsatisfactory progress while assigned to weight control program; overall poor attitude and lack of motivation/willingness to lose weight), advise of assistance available and corrective actions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950915 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to unsatisfactory performance due to weight control failure. After a thorough review of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00524 (1)

    Original file (MD99-00524 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    941011: Counseled concerning deficiency (unsatisfactory progress while assigned to weight control program; overall poor attitude and lack of motivation/willingness to lose weight), advise of assistance available and corrective actions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950915 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to unsatisfactory performance due to weight control failure. After a thorough review of the...