Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00083
Original file (ND99-00083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DT3, USN
Docket No. ND99-00083

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981014, 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 990927. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned the applicant’s discharge was improper and inequitable. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and reason of the discharge shall be changed to: HONORABLE/TO ATTEND SCHOOL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620235.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. “ I believe that my performance while on active duty with the United States Navy warrants an Honorable Discharge, rather than the General Discharge I received.”

“The following narrative description of my performance will explain why I believe the correction is justfied.”

“I graduated from NSDAT San Diego third in my class of fifty nine students.”

“I volunteered for an overseas assignment and was assigned to 3rd Dental Battalion / 3rd FSSG Okinawa, Japan. I served in that command 24 November 1994 through 21 October 1997.”

“During my assignment with the 3rd Dental Battalion I was twice nominated for Junior Sailor of the Quarter (June 1995 September 1995 and October 1995 - December 1995). I was selected as Junior Sailor of the Quarter for the period of I September 1995 - 31 December 1995.” (See attached copies of award)

“I was selected Junior Sailor of the Year for the period of 1 January 1995 - 31 December 1995.” (See attached copy of award)

“I was awarded two Flag Officer Certificates of Commendation and one Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for my accomplishments.”

“Through ranks El - E4 I was promoted at the earliest date eligible each time.”

“I was never in my naval career counseled for any disciplinary problems. I never received EMI or NJP.”

“I never received less than a 3.0 evaluation on any of my job or conduct related performance traits.” (See attached copies)

“I was approved by BUPERS for early separation with an Honorable Discharge effective 1 November 1997.” (See attached "Special Request/Authorization" dated 11 November 1996)

“I was advised six days prior to my rotation date that I was to be administratively discharged with a General rather than a full Honorable Discharge. The reason for the change being that I had not met the Navy's weight control policy for three consecutive cycles. This came as a great suprise to me as I had been assured on at least three occassions by my Command Master Chief, DTCM Timothy Fox, that I should "Not worry about it" because my early separation had already been approved.”

“I was discharged 30 October 1997, two days prior to the date I had been originally scheduled to be discharged with a full Honorable Discharge. I feel that this arbitrary, last minute change was not warranted. Throughout my Navy career I performed my duties in an exemplary manner. I always strove to be the best sailor I could be. My only shortcoming was my inability to control my weight. I made every effort possible to reduce my weight. I attended every remedial PT session that was assigned. I never failed any physical portion of the PRT. My weight did not deter from my performance or leadership duties in any way. I have battled a weight problem my entire life and I was regretfully unable to meet the strict weight standards of the Navy.”
“I respectfully request that you upgrade my discharge from a General to a full Honorable Discharge. Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide me.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Enlisted Evaluation Reports for 95FEB01 - 96JAN15, 96JAN16 - 96JUN11, 96JUN12 - 96DEC15, 96DEC16 - 97JUN15, 97JUN16 - 97OCT21
Copy of Certificates of Commendation dated 5 February 1996, 28 February 1996, 27 November 1996
          Special Request/Authoriztion Signed 19 November 1996
         Copy of message from BUPERS dated 1 September 1997
         Copy of Good Conduct Award dated 31 May 1997
         Copy of Junior SOQ Nomination dated 24 Novemer 1995
         Copy of letter from Commanding Officer directing discharge dated 14 October 1997
 Copy of Special Request/Authorization from applicant requesting early out dated 7 November 1996
          Copy of message from BUPERS dated 13 December 1996

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)              940324 - 940531  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940601               Date of Discharge: 971030

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 04 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 80

 Highest Rate: DT3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.25 (4)    Behavior: 3.00 (4)                OTA: 3.74        (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, OSR (2), NAM, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940324:  Enlistment Physical Examination Report: Height: 72 1/2 inches, weight: 207. Body Fat 23%. Maximum Body Fat 24%.
940601:  Physical Inspection date: Weight 200 pounds.

 940606:  Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 72 1/2 inches, 200 pounds, Body Fat 22%.
950327:  Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 73 inches, 204 pounds.
951016:  Applicant placed on limited/light duty for 30 days. Fractured 5 th metatarsal right foot.

960326:  Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 73 inches, Body Fat 19%.
961001:          Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 73 1/2 inches, 230 pounds, Body Fat 21%.

961001:          Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 73 inches, 238 pounds, Body Fat 25%.
961003:  Placement on Mandatory PT Program/counseling (First Cycle Failure):
         Applicant formally evaluated as not meeting the Navy’s minimum physical fitness requirements and advised that to remain eligible for continued service he must participate in the Mandatory PT program regimen and that failure to cooperate in and complete the regimen may constitute grounds for separation processing.

961010:  Counseling: Applicant advised that he failed the 10/96 (first) physical readiness test by failing the height (73 inches)/weight (230 pounds)/body fat (25%) and placed on the command’s sponsored physical conditioning program. Sources of assistance included. Advised if this is the third failure in a four year period, you will be process for administrative separation (unless approved for a waiver by the Bureau of Naval Personnel).

961107:  Applicant requested to be Honorably discharged at PRD, 1Nov97 to pursue my civilian college degree. (EAOS 990531).

961109:  Applicant's special request/authorization forwarded with approval recommended.

970121:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 244 pounds.

970127:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 246 pounds.

970203:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 244 pounds.

970210:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 244 pounds.

970218:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 244 pounds.

970224:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 243 pounds.

970303:  Height 73 1/2 inches, weight 244 pounds.

970409:          Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 73 inches, 245 pounds, Body Fat 25%.

970430:  Height 73 inches, weight 250.

970520:  Counseling: Applicant advised that he failed the 04/97 (second) physical readiness test by failing the height (73 inches)/weight (245 pounds)/body fat (25%) and placed on the command’s sponsored physical conditioning program. Sources of assistance included. Advised if this is the third failure in a four year period, you will be process for administrative separation (unless approved for a waiver by the Bureau of Naval Personnel).

970606:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970613:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970620:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970711:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970718:          Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970725:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970801:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 250 pounds.

970808:  Height 73 1/2 inches, 248 pounds.

970901:  BUPERS approved request for early separation effective 971101.

971001:  Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results: Height 72 inches, 257 pounds, Body Fat 30%.

971006:  Counseling: Applicant advised that he failed the 10/97 (third) physical readiness test by failing the height (72 inches)/weight (257 pounds)/body fat (30%) and placed on the command’s sponsored physical conditioning program. Sources of assistance included. Advised if this is the third failure in a four year period, you will be processed for administrative separation (unless approved for a waiver by the Bureau of Naval Personnel).

971014:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a General (under Honorable condition), by reason of weight control failure, as evidenced by failure to achieve prescribed physical readiness standards.
971014:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and to submit statements.

971014:  Applicant's statement: Due to my inability to satisfactorily meet the Navy's Physical Readiness standards, I accept an administration separation from the Naval Service. Additionally, I request to be discharged from the U.S. Navy at the earliest convenience.

971014:  Commanding officer directed discharge with General (under Honorable conditions) by reason of weight control failure due to not meeting the prescribed physical readiness standards.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971030 General (under Honorable conditions), for weight control failure, due to not meeting the prescribed physical readiness standards (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 this discharge was improper and inequitable (D and E). Although the applicant failed three consecutive PRTs, he had an approved early release from active duty, with an Honorable discharge, from BUPERS. Additionally , his overall service record warrants an Honorable discharge, regardless of the three PRT failures.

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue has merit. The applicant’s discharge was improper and inequitable, based on the fact that he had an approved early release from active duty from BUPERS and the applicant’s service record. There is no documentation of any disciplinary action against him, other than the weight control problem, he was selected as the Junior Sailor of the Year 1995, his overall, final evaluation grade point average was 2.34 (5.0 scale), he received a Navy Commendation medal and was approved for early separation by BUPERS, prior to his admin discharge. According to regulations the discharge characterization should be Honorable unless there are significant aspects of the applicant’s conduct or performance of duty that outweigh the positive aspects of his service record. Weight control is the only negative noted. Relief granted.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620260, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE.

B. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97 Article 3420440, HEALTH AND PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.
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 St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053139C070420

    Original file (2001053139C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Inspector General inquiry determined: “No evidence existed that [applicant’s name omitted] actually filed an Article 138 complaint against his Company Commander. The applicant was advised by military counsel to appeal the bar to reenlistment and to file an Article 138 complaint and he did not do either. Evidence of record shows that he chose to not appeal the QMP decision and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance based on the argument that he met Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061746C070421

    Original file (2001061746C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he was reinstated to pay grade E-7 and was rescheduled into another Advance Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's available military records show:

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-054

    Original file (2006-054.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    command an email stating that he had measured the applicant at 23% body fat. The applicant was medically cleared for weight probation on April 13, 2005, with a weight of 259 pounds and 33% body fat. Although the applicant alleged that his discharge was based on the results of the hydrostatic testing, whereas COMDTINST M1020.8E mandates measurement by tape, the discharge orders issued on August 30, 2005, were clearly based on the weight and tape-measure body fat measurements made near the...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-127

    Original file (2004-127.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Screening [MAW]. states that members exceeding their weight and fat standards shall be placed on probation to lose the excess weight and fat. It further states the following.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001181

    Original file (20150001181.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The effective date of the flag is the date the Soldier was found to be in noncompliance with Army Regulation 600-9 (The AWCP). b. Paragraph 3-2b states that Soldiers not meeting body fat standards after 1 year from the date of entry into the active Army will be entered in the AWCP and flagged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-2 by the unit commander. The evidence of record shows on 3 September 2004, the commander disapproved the applicant's award of the AGCM for the period 9...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01301

    Original file (ND97-01301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01301 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970825, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. On 870312, the applicant was evaluated for his body fat and weight. On 890417, the applicant was evaluated for his body fat and weight.

  • 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500058

    Original file (ND0500058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In time subsequent months I returned to the reserve center on one occasion and asked about my discharge - Receiving no information, I requested a copy of my service record from the Navy Reserve Personnel Command in New Orleans. The record contains a voided entry that is administratively crossed-out, dated 19900307 stating that the Applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge. The following entry in the record dated 19900307 states that the Applicant was discharged with a general...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00215

    Original file (ND00-00215.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 (2 copies) 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: 920610 Date of Discharge: 951114 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 05 05 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time) Inactive: None ...