Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01085
Original file (MD99-01085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMCR
Docket No. MD99-01085

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990803, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000424. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned an inequity, but no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was 4 to 1 that the character of the discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/Unsatisfactory Performance - Unsatisfactory Performance of duties (administrative discharge board not required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880615               Date of Discharge: 910318

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 05 09
         Inactive: 02 03 23

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 88

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.5 (6)                       Conduct: 4.4 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Letter of Appreciation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unsatisfactory Performance - Unsatisfactory performance of duties (administrative discharge board not required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.3

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900708   Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure of PRT, advise of assistance available and corrective actions. Discharge warning issued.

900912:  Applicant failed PRT

901021:  Applicant failed PRT.

901216   Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties. The basis for discharge is consistent failure to reach a physical fitness level that would permit you to pass the Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test administered on 3 separate occasions since June 1990.
901216   Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

910109   Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory performance of duties.

910201   Commanding Officer/Inspector-Instructor, 4 th Combat Engineer Battalion, 4 th Marine Division], advised [Commanding General, 4 th Marine Division (Rein)] concurrence of applicant's recommendation for discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory participation and characterization of service be under honorable conditions (general).

910213:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact

910214:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 4 th Marine Division (Rein)] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the applicant's discharge was directed with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory performance of duties.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910318 under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance due to weight control failure (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 (D and E).

The Board found that the discharge was inequitable based on the applicant’s service record. The applicant did not have a record of NJPs and had extremely high marks in both proficiency and conduct. Therefore, the Board grants full relief and the characterization shall be changed to HONORABLE.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 890627 until 950817, except for subparagraph 1, which was retroactively changed by ALMAR 57/93, effective 920310.
B. ALMAR 57/93 (CMC 161805Z FEB 93), REVISED ENLISTED SEPARATION POLICY FOR WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
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 document 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
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE RM 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00639

    Original file (MD03-00639.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Assigned to Battalion Weight Control Program with an initial weight of 225 lbs. Body fat is 25.9%.940328: Applicant granted a 3 month extension of the Battalion Weight Control Program.940621: Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was not proper or equitable (C and D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00471

    Original file (MD01-00471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00471 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010227, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable . Body fat 28%.930707: Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO's NJP on 23Apr93. The Board found that the applicant was discharged for his unsatisfactory performance while on weight control.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01097

    Original file (MD04-01097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 950721: GCMCA [CG, 2MAW] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the Applicant's discharge was directed with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory performance of duties. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19950801 under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance due to weight control...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00427

    Original file (MD99-00427.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00427 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was overweight when I was enlisted in to the marines and because I gained the weight over the course of a few years I was released with a General Under Honorable Conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00052

    Original file (MD03-00052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    931115: Applicant has been determined to be overweight and was directed to meet the following weight reduction goal: 4 pounds per month. Specifically, failure to meet Marine Corps weight standards. [Failed to meet USMC weight standards on weight control extension and is therefore recommended for separation from the naval service.]

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00661

    Original file (MD01-00661.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 920714 under honorable conditions (general) due to weight control failure (A). 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 not equitable (C and D).The Board found the applicant’s discharge was based solely on his failure to meet height/weight standards, and that his...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00534

    Original file (MD01-00534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Weight Control Failure - involuntary discharge directed by established directive (no board entitlement), authority: ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93]. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :900202: Applicant assigned to weight control/distribution program and directed t meet the following weight reduction goal: 5 pounds per month. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00246

    Original file (MD02-00246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00246 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 931112: GCMCA [CG, Marine Reserve Force] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of weight control failure.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00754

    Original file (MD04-00754.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 911025 - 920329 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920330 Date of Discharge: 940819 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 04 21 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00125

    Original file (MD03-00125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00125 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021024, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The fact that the Applicant was in a limited duty status during much of his enlistment does not make his assignment to weight control and subsequent administrative separation for failure to maintain weight standards either improper or inequitable.