Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1998_Marine | MD98-00437
Original file (MD98-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD98-00437


 Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 980121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary discharge review and listed no representative on the DD-293.


Summary of Review

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 981102. The NDRB determined that the basis for the discharge is proper and that the characterization of service is equitable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS(GENERAL)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE; authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6215.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)


1.       I was discharged because of overweight and could not lose the weight because of knee injury and was discharged.



PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active:  None
         Inactive:        USMCR(J)                  930820-930914    COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930915                        Date of Discharge: 960216

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                                   Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 39

 MOS: 3051                                            Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency: 4.2 (4)                                Conduct: 4.0 (3)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, Rifle Marksman Badge

 Non-judicial Punishment(s): 3             Court(s)-Martial:

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 6

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:
Discharged GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE; authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6215. [Corrected for admin error]

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS1,2


 920612:  Report of enlistment examination indicates applicant’s height 66¾ inches; weight 184 lbs. Additional entries: 930820 wt: 197; 930914 wt: 192; max wt: 203.

930820:  District Level weight waiver approved.

930915:  Joined 2 nd RTBN, RTR, MCRD Parris Island.

940105:  Joined SOI, Camp Lejeune, NC.

940131:  Joined HQBN, MCLB Barstow, CA.

940524:  Joined 3 rd SUPBN, 3 rd FSSG, FMFPAC.
940718:  Assigned to weight control program.
Weight: 220; Body-fat: 31.5
940725:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, failure to meet Marine Corps weight standards. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warnings issued. Directed to lose 3 lbs per month to achieve 186 lbs by 950120. [Note: This record book entry was in error in that 186 lbs could not be achieved with the realistic goal of 3 lbs per month, for 6 months; this weight loss rate would result in a weight of 202 lbs after 6 months.]

940829:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, failure to keep living space in a satisfactory manner and for improper use of his chain of command. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warnings issued.

 950111:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absented from appointed place of duty (0530-0730, 941227). Awarded forfeiture of $200.00, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Not appealed.
950331:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failed to go to appointed place of duty, 0530 on 950315. Awarded forfeiture of $200.00, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Suspended $50.00 for 6 months. Not appealed.
950605:  An Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider (ACHCP) determined the applicant’s physical appearance was not due to a pathological disorder. Recommended loss of 7 lbs per month, and a total of 42 lbs over a period of 6 months.

950614:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance. Specifically, weight control failure. Placed on weight control program 940721. Despite command assistance to meet your weight standard, you have failed to make sufficient progress. As a result, you will be processed for administrative separation as a weight control failure.
950710:  Applicant advised of rights and, having chosen not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27B, waived all rights except the right to obtain copies of documents that would be forwarded to the discharge authority supporting the basis for the proposed separation.

950713:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). The factual basis for this recommendation was the applicant’s inability to meet and maintain the Marine Corps’ height and weight standard.

950725:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of inability to achieve and maintain the Marine Corps’ height and weight standard.

950823:  Commanding General, 3 rd FSSG directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of weight control failure.

 950824:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation of pair of sunglasses ($12.00) property of Camp Foster Exchange. Violation of article 86, UA 0530, 950818 until 0800, 950821 (2 days/S).
Awarded reduction E-1 (Pvt), forfeiture of $427.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days. Not appealed.
950911:  Joined SEPSCO, HQSPTBN, Camp Pendleton, CA.
960210:  Letter announcing Special Court-Martial. (Letter stated SPCM may proceed at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, or any such authorized place as directed.)
CHARGE SHEET
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (1 Specification):
                  Specification: UA 0700, 960119 until 1300, 960123 (4 days/S).
                  Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (1 Specification):
                 

Specification: Impersonating a Lance Corporal.
                  Sentence, CA, SA: Not found in record.
                  [Recorder’s Note: No documentation that SPCM was ever convened.]

960216:          DD Form 214 indicates discharge GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/INVOL DIS DIR BY ESTAB DIR (NO BOARD ENT); authority: CMC MSG 161805Z FEB 93/ALMAR 57/932.

RECORDER’S NOTES:

1 The source for all entries is the service record (includes medical/dental record) unless otherwise noted.

 2 DD Form 214 contains administrative errors. See Part VI.

PART IV - EXTRACT OF PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW
A. Paragraph 6215, WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), states that when the sole reason for separation is failure to meet height and weight standards, and the Marine's performance and conduct otherwise conform with established standards, the Marine will be separated under this paragraph.

1. Obesity . In all cases, commanders are obligated to document counseling and rehabilitation opportunities afforded to Marines with regard to meeting prescribed height and weight standards. Marines with a medically diagnosed condition that precludes or interferes with weight control may be separated through appropriate channels.

2. Weight control failure . To be eligible to separate a Marine for weight control failure, the Marine must have made a reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height and weight standards by adhering to the regimen prescribed by the appropriately credentialed health care provider (ACHCP) and the commander as prescribed in MCO 6100.10.

3. Weight control failure will not be used to separate overweight Marines who also meet the criteria for separation under other provisions, such as paragraph 6206 (Unsatisfactory Performance) or paragraph 6210 (Misconduct). These Marines, who are also overweight, do not qualify for separation based on weight control failure, but should be processed under these more appropriate administrative discharge provisions.

4. Basis . A Marine may be separated for failure to meet established height and weight standards when it is determined that the member is unqualified for further military service and meets both of the following conditions:

a. The Marine fails to meet height weight standards and, the sole reason for separation is failure to meet such standards; and

b. The Marine's performance and conduct otherwise conform with established standards.

5. Counseling and rehabilitation . Separation processing may not be initiated until the Marine's weight control program progress has been fully documented; he or she must have been counseled and afforded the opportunity to overcome the noted deficiencies per paragraph 6105.

6. Characterization . Characterization will be honorable or general under honorable conditions per table 6-1.
7. This paragraph will not be used for entry level separations.

B. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, states characterization of service for a Marine separated under the provisions of paragraph 6215, weight control failure is either honorable or general (under honorable conditions) as determined by the Marine's service record.

C. Paragraph 1004 CHARACTERIZATION OF SERVICE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818) states:

1. Types of Characterization or Description . Characterization of service or description of separation based upon administrative action is authorized as follows. See paragraph 1004.3 for additional information.

a.       Honorable
b.       General (Under Honorable Conditions)
c.       Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.
d.       Uncharacterized (See paragraph 1004.5)
2. General Considerations for Characterizing Service

a. Importance of Proper Characterization
(1) Characterization is recognition of the quality of a Marine's performance and conduct. Determining the proper characterization should not be underestimated. Characterization serves as a goal for each Marine and as a meaningful endorsement to potential employers.

(2) Most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities should ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due.

b. Guidelines for Determining Characterization:

(1) Standards of performance and conduct as determined by MCO P1610.7, Performance Evaluation System and MCO P1070.12, Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM), form the primary basis for determining the character of service. Minimum acceptable conduct and duty proficiency markings during an enlistment are 4.0 and above and 3.0 and above, respectively. Failure of a Marine to achieve these standards is evidence of significant negative aspects, outweighing all but the most meritorious military records. Marines who do not achieve these standards should not receive an honorable discharge.

 (2) Reason for Separation

(3) Type of Behavior Which is the Basis for Discharge. Generally, characterization will be based on a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident, although a single instance of misconduct or poor performance may be the basis for characterization.

(4) Limitations on Characterization (See paragraph 1004.4, and section 2 and 4 of chapter 6.)

(5) Member's Age, Length of Service, Grade, Aptitude, and Physical and Mental Condition

(6) Conduct in the Civilian Community (whether or not such conduct is subject to the UCMJ, which brings discredit to the service, or prejudices good order and discipline)

(7) The separation authority for all Marines with 18 or more years of active/active constructive service is the CMC. The characterization of service for these Marines is normally honorable, however, characterizations of service for Marines in this category, who are separated as a result of misconduct, may be awarded a characterization of service of less than honorable. In cases which warrant such a characterization, the command must forward a recommendation to the CMC, with supporting documentation and endorsements, for a determination.

1.       Types of Characterization

a. Honorable . An honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. For members who separate at EAS with conduct and proficiency marks of 4.0 and 3.0 or above, respectively, characterization will be honorable.

b. General (Under Honorable Conditions) . If a member's service has been honest and faithful, characterize that service as general (under honorable conditions). Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member's military record, as reflected by conduct and proficiency marks below 4.0 and 3.0, respectively.

c. Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

(1) This characterization may be issued when the reason for separation is based upon behavior or omission that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine. (Examples of factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of special positions of trust, disregard of customary superior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of others, and drug abuse.)

(2) This characterization is authorized only if the member has been afforded the opportunity to request an administrative board, except in cases of separation in lieu of trial by courts-martial. See paragraphs 4104 and 6419.

(3) When an enlisted Marine serving in paygrade E-4 or above is administratively separated with an other than honorable characterization of service, the Marine shall be administratively reduced to paygrade E-3, such reduction to become effective upon separation.
4. Limitations on Characterization. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, characterization will be determined solely by the member's military record during the current enlistment or period of service plus any extensions prescribed by law or regulation or effected with the consent of the member.

a. Pre-service activities, including records of conviction by courts-martial, records of absence without leave, misconduct for which a reenlistment waiver was granted, or commission of other offenses for which punishment was not imposed or adjudged, shall not be considered to determine characterization. To the extent that such matters are considered in determining retention or separation decisions, the record of proceedings shall reflect that such information was not considered on the issue of characterization.

b. Pre-service activities including misconduct for which an enlistment waiver was granted, may not be considered on the issue of characterization except in a proceeding concerning fraudulent entry into the Marine Corps. Evidence of pre-service misrepresentations about matters that would have precluded, postponed or otherwise affected the member's eligibility for enlistment or induction may be considered.

c. When the sole basis for separation is a serious offense (including a violation of Article 112a, UCMJ) which resulted in a conviction by a special or general court-martial conviction that did not adjudge a punitive discharge and characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions is warranted under the guidance in sections 1 and 2 of chapter 6, it must be approved by the Secretary of the Navy on a case-by-case basis.

d. Conduct in the civilian community of a member of a Reserve component who is not on active duty or active duty for training may form the basis for characterization under other than honorable conditions only if such conduct directly affects the performance of military duties (service-related). Such conduct may form the basis of characterization as general (under honorable conditions) only if such conduct adversely affects the overall effectiveness of the Marine Corps including military morale and efficiency.

e. Drug Abuse. Confirmed illegal drug abuse requires mandatory administrative separation processing. If processing is based solely upon evidence that may not be considered in determining characterization of service, the separation authority may direct retention, or approve an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service as warranted by the respondent's service record. In all other administrative separation proceedings based on drug abuse, the GCMCA may act as the separation authority and take final action in accordance with paragraph 6309 (except in cases that must be forwarded to the SECNAV or CMC under subparagraph 1004.4c or paragraph 6307).

f. The results of mandatory urinalysis may be considered on the issue of characterization when the evidence was gathered during an inspection under military Rule of Evidence 313, MCM, or from a search and seizure under Military Rules of Evidence 311-317, MCM, or incident to an examination conducted for a valid medical purpose under military Rule of Evidence 312 (F), MCM.

5.       Uncharacterized Separations

a. Uncharacterized. An uncharacterized description shall be used as follows. [Note: With respect to non-service-related administrative matters, i.e., DVA benefits, civilian employment, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered as the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.]

(1) When a separation is initiated while a member is in an entry level status (see paragraph 1002.21), except in the following circumstances:

(a) Separation for misconduct, fraudulent enlistment, or homosexual conduct is authorized and when characterization under other than honorable conditions is warranted by the circumstances of the case;

(b) Separation in lieu of court-martial is authorized and when characterization under other than honorable conditions is warranted by the circumstances of the case; or

(c) Characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of military duty, and is approved on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of the Navy. Honorable characterization will be considered when the member is separated, by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, disability, or secretarial plenary authority.

(2) When a Marine with broken service is separated while in indoctrination training for failure to satisfactorily complete such training.

(3) When a Marine is separated while in the Delayed Entry Program because of ineligibility for enlistment. Separation is effected per paragraph 6204 of this Manual.

D. Table 1-1, Characterization of Service, Rule 4, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), states that characterization, if a Marine is over 18 years of age and has served more than 180 days, is a corporal or below and has minimum average conduct and proficiency markings of 4.0/3.0, respectively, is honorable.
E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGE REVIEW, states, in part:

“9.2 Propriety of the Discharge

a. A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that:

(1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or

(2) A change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.

b. When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court), the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.

c. The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis. Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.

d. The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the NDRB shall either re-characterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:

(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;

(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.”

F. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGE REVIEW, states, in part:
“9.3 Equity of the Discharge

A discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless:

 a. In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that the policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ in material respects from policies and procedures currently applicable on a service-wide basis to discharges of the type under consideration, provided that:
(1) Current policies or procedures represent a substantial enhancement of the rights afforded a respondent in such proceedings; and
(2) There is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge, if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time of the discharge proceedings under consideration.

b. At the time of issuance, the discharge was inconsistent with standards of discipline in the military service of which the applicant was a member.

c. In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this paragraph and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance. Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:

(1) Quality of service, as evidenced by factors such as:

 (a) service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct and proficiency ratings (numerical and narrative);
(b) awards and decorations;

(c) letters of commendation or reprimand;

(d) combat service;

(e) wounds received in action;

(f) records of promotions and demotions;

(g) level of responsibility at which the applicant served;

 (h) other acts of merit that may not have resulted in formal recognition through an award or commendation;
(i) length of service during the service period which is the subject of the discharge review;
(j) prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;
(k) convictions by court-martial;

(l) records of non-judicial punishment;

 (m) convictions by civil authorities while a member of the service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in the service records;
(n) records of periods of unauthorized absence; and

(o) records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.

(2) Capability to serve, as evidenced by factors such as:

 (a) Total capabilities. This includes an evaluation of matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores. Consideration may also be given as to whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.
(b) Family and personal problems. This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.
(c) Arbitrary or capricious actions. This includes actions by individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge the individual or unduly influence the characterization of service.
(d) Discrimination. This includes unauthorized acts as documented by records or other evidence."

PART V - RATIONALE FOR DECISION
Discussion
         After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the basis for the discharge is proper and that the characterization of the applicant’s service is equitable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE; authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

         The applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 960216 due to his failure to meet weight standards. Prior to his enlistment, he had been denied entry into the Marine Corps due to his weight. However, he subsequently came within standards and enlisted with a weight waiver. At no time, just prior to enlistment or while on active duty, did the applicant meet the Marine Corps height and weight standard of 186 lbs for a male of his height. There is no documentation as to the applicant’s pre-enlistment/ enlistment body fat percentage; assumption is that he was granted a weight waiver in compliance with standards (MCO 6100.10), which dictate a body fat percentage of 18 percent or less.

         The applicant entered the Marine Corps on 940915. His enlistment physical indicates he weighed 197 lbs. He completed recruit training at Parris Island, SC where he received proficiency and conduct marks of 4.2 and 4.2, respectively. Following recruit training, he successfully completed the School of Infantry (SOI), Camp Lejeune, NC and reported to his MOS school at Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB), Barstow, CA on 940131, where he was awarded MOS 3051 (Supply Warehouse Clerk). He reported to his first FMF unit, 3 rd Supply Battalion, 3 rd Force Service Support Group (FSSG), FMFPAC, Okinawa, Japan on 940524. Upon unit weigh-in on 940718, his weight was determined to be 220 lbs and his computed body-fat was 31.5. He was then sent to an Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider (ACHCP) on 940720 where his weight was 220 lbs and body-fat computed to be 25.9; he was given a goal of losing 3 lbs per month for 6 months, a total of 18 lbs by 950120 (this would have resulted in a weight of 202 lbs, close to his entry weight waiver

         Over the next 6 months, from 940725 to 950120, the applicant was assigned to the Marine Corps Weight Control Program. He made consistent progress, and actually was within one pound of his goal, as established by the ACHCP, more than a month ahead of schedule (941205). However, by 941222, he weighed 206 lbs and his weight reached 222 lbs by 950223. It should be noted that the applicant was granted light-duty from 950209 thru 950309 (two 14-day chits); the diagnosis for the first chit was not legible -- the second chit indicated mid-back muscle strain as the diagnosis. The applicant’s lone issue is that he could not lose the weight due to an injury to his knee; there is no documentation substantiating a knee problem.
         The applicant was subject of two counselings, one concerning his weight (940725) and another concerning upkeep of his living space and use of the chain of command (940829). He was additionally the subject of two NJP’s for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, Unauthorized Absence -- 0530 on 950111 and 950331 -- remedial PT, Weight Control Program.

         On 23 Mar 95, in a letter to the Commanding Officer, 3 rd Supply Battalion, the Commanding Officer, Supply Company, “requested that the applicant be discharged due to his inability to meet the prescribed weight standards. He further stated that the applicant was placed on weight control for a period of six months and did not perform satisfactorily.” The commanding officer’s request went forward and the Battalion Commander recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) on 950713 on the factual basis of the applicant’s inability to meet and maintain the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. On 950823, the Commanding General, 3 rd FSSG directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of weight control failure. Prior to this outcome, the applicant’s documented problems in the Marine Corps revolved around weight control, with the single exception of the aforementioned counseling on 940829 for shortfalls in upkeep of living space and improper use of the chain of command.

         On 950824, the applicant was the subject of a third NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 121 and 86, appropriation of a pair of sunglasses from the Camp Foster Exchange and UA from 0530, 950818 till 0800, 950821 (2 days), respectively. The applicant was subsequently transferred to Separations Company, Camp Pendleton, CA where he was joined on 950911 to await separation. While at Camp Pendleton, he was subject of a letter announcing Special Court-Martial proceedings for his being UA for 4 days and impersonating a LCpl for the duration of his stay at Camp Pendleton. There is no further documenting of SPCM actions. Finally, on 960216 he was discharged under honorable conditions (general).

         The applicant has requested that the characterization of service on his discharge be changed to honorable, vice under honorable conditions (general). In support of this request, he has sited a single issue: “I was discharged because of overweight and could not lose the weight because of knee injury and was discharged.” The NDRB determined that the characterization of the applicant’s service as under honorable conditions is equitable.
The applicant was quite fortunate to get the discharge he received. Clearly, within the bounds of the Seps Manual, he could have been discharged for reasons of misconduct, resulting in an unfavorable characterization of discharge.

PART VI - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
Decision :

The Board discerned no impropriety in the discharge. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the basis for discharge was equitable and 4 to 1 that the character of the discharge is proper. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE; authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

The NDRB noted administrative errors on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority, should read “MARCORSEPMAN 6215” vice “CMC MSG 161805Z FEB 93/ALMAR 57/93.” Block 26, Separation Code, should read “HCR1” vice “JCR1”. Block 28, Narrative Reason For Separation, should read “WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE” vice “INVOL DIS DIR BY ESTAB DIR (NO BOARD ENT).”


         If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional documents requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

         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:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Building 36 Washington Navy Yard
                  901 M Street, SE
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00853

    Original file (MD03-00853.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 960605: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failing to make a reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height and weight standards. 960618: SJA determined the case was sufficient in law and fact.960618: GCMCA [CG, MCRD/ERR, PISC] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600904

    Original file (MD0600904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :941105: Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.950607: Applicant’s Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer reported approved alternate weight standard of 218 pounds on Applicant’s fitness report for period 950301 – 950403.960108: Applicant’s Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer reported approved alternate weight standard of 220 pounds on Applicant’s fitness report for period 950403 – 960108.960208: Applicant referred to Credentialed...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00181

    Original file (MD03-00181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980428: Applicant’s weight: 270 pounds, Body Fat: 31%.980508: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties.980511: Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) due to weight control failure. The applicant does not deny that he failed to maintain Marine Corps height and weight standards in violation of MCO 6100.10 and he failed to make reasonable progress...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00668

    Original file (MD00-00668.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I had a problem with weight control, and was discharged because of it.To begin with, I had a weight problem when I went into the Marine Corps, and had to go on a delayed enlistment program to give me time to loose some weight. I request that you look into this situation and assist in getting the discharge upgraded, so that I may receive my VA Education Assistance benefit.your assistance Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00619

    Original file (MD00-00619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the applicant's service and medical records are reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. 970106: Retention warning issued and counseled that failure to maintain personal appearance and weight standards would result in administrative discharge action.970715: Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. 981010: GCMCA [CO, MACG 38] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200226

    Original file (MD1200226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record did reflect the Applicant failed to meet established height and weight standards after being placed in the weight control program for 13 months. Based on the evidence of record, coupled with the fact that no reason for discharge was contemplated by the command prior to the Applicant’s weight control failure, the NDRB determined the quality of the Applicant’s service met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. Since full relief had been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00642

    Original file (MD00-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but inequitable (C and D).In response to applicant’s issue 1, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500509

    Original file (MD0500509.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Concerning your assignment to the Marine Corps Body composition program. Applicant counseled that he will be processed for administrative separation due to failure to maintain the Marine Corps standards. The Commanding Office is recommending that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00664

    Original file (MD04-00664.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970929 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to unsatisfactory performance due to weight control failure. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600679

    Original file (MD0600679.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-Pvt, USMCDocket No. Decisional Issues Equity – Quality of service Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T. L. S_, SSgt, USMC, dated November 30, 2000Three pages from Applicant’s service recordApplicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF...