Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00538
Original file (ND99-00538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HM3, USN
Docket No. ND99-00538

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990309, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000201. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but discerned inequity did exist in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1. The discharge is improper due to the fact, I asked while still on active duty to go to a weight lose program, but was denied due to manpower. Also I had a knee injury that occurred during a physical readiness test, I was told it need an operation, but I would have to wait till after I was discharged from active duty. I request the review board change my discharge to an Honorable discharge..

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Referral for Civilian Medical Care dtd 10/29/96 (Diagnosis - Lateral Meniscus tears)
Weymouth MRI Diagnostic Centers Exam Report of 11/18/96
Orthopedic Clinic, Naval Hospital, Groton Consultation Health Record page
Applicant's Separation Physical Examination of 9 Dec 96

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930129 - 930208  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930209               Date of Discharge: 970117

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 11 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 00

 Highest Rate: HM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.85(4)     Behavior: 3.9 (4)                 OTA: 3.9

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NATO SM, AFSM, SSDR, NER, GCM, Expert Rifle Medical M16, Expert Pistol Medal (.45 Cal)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
[NOTE: SERVICE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE AND APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE PACKAGE.]
930129:  Enlistment Physical Examination Report: HT - 74½", WT - 215 lbs., Build - Heavy, 23% body fat.
930209:  Re-evaluation: HT - 74½", WT - 217 lbs, Build - Heavy, 23% body fat.

930308:  Physical Examination Report for Submarine Duty: HT - 74", WT - 215 lbs, Build - Medium. Qualified for submarine duty.
930322:  NavHosp, Great Lakes, IL: 18 year old male presents with left foot pain. First seen 12 Mar 93 for bilateral foot pain. Follow-up 17 Mar 93 reveals foot pain was resolving. Has been to MTU and pain more isolated to his left foot. No blunt trauma i.e., dropping something on foot or striking bulkhead. Pain increase with jumping jacks and pushups. No other complaints.
951127:  Counseling: Advised that he did not met the Physical Readiness Standards due to either failing the official PRT, failing to participate in the official PRT and/or failing to met body fat standards. Notified of corrective actions, assistance available and issued discharge warning.
961023:  NavHosp, Groton, CT: 22 year old male return for refill of Florinal.
                  [Note: Weight reported as 235 lbs.]

 961118:  Weymouth MRI Diagnostic Center: MRI exam of the left knee to rule ut lateral meniscal tear.
         Impression: Question of a horizontal tear through the posterior horn of the medial meniscus extending through the posterior surface is raised. The examination is otherwise within normal limits.
961119:  NavHosp, Groton, CT: Sick call, 22 year old male complains of congestion/cough. [Note: Weight reported as 238 lbs.]
961209:  Separation Physical Exam: HT - 76", WT - 235 lbs, Build - Medium,
                  23% body fat.

 961213:  NavHosp, Groton, CT: Follow-up, sick in quarters. Diagnosis: viral syndrome. [Note - Weight reported as 233 pounds.]
[NO ENTRY IN MEDICAL RECORD THAT PROVIDES A DIAGNOSIS OF OBESITY.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970117 with a 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 that the discharge was proper but inequitable (D and E). The applicant served 3 years, 11 months and 9 days of a 4-year enlistment. An evaluation of his entire record of service, including outstanding performance markings throughout his military career and personal awards, provided enough compelling evidence to convince the Board the applicant’s request warranted relief. The Board recognized that the applicant came into the military with a weight problem, continued to have weight control problems throughout his career but was allowed to continue on active duty to within 23 days of completing a 4-year enlistment. In spite of these difficulties, the record shows, the applicant served Honorably throughout his career. Additionally, there was ample opportunity for the applicant’s command to, either assist him in correcting his problem or discharge him well before the actual discharge date. Based on the unfairness of this discharge, relief is 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 | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01130

    Original file (ND02-01130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.Department of Veterans Affairs, to Applicant, dated Jul 23, 2002, providing the DD Form 293 to the Applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950221 - 950314 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950315 Date of Discharge: 980310 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00940

    Original file (ND99-00940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960405: Commanding Officer, USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN, advised BUPERS that member was discharged on 8 April 1996 with an Honorable by reason of weight control failure as evidenced by failing three physical readiness tests on 10 November 1994, May 1995 and November 1995. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 960408 with a general (under honorable conditions) for weight control failure due to not meeting the prescribed physical...

  • 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 | 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 ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00017

    Original file (MD03-00017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00017 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021001, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 990924: Credentialed Health Care Provider, NavHosp, Camp Lejeune, medical eval: Current HT – 70 inches, WT – 231 pounds, Body Fat – 27%. Advised of being overweight and in excess of allowable body fat standard.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00744

    Original file (ND99-00744.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE /Other physical/mental conditions - obesity, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. He has a long standing history of non-compliance with Navy weight and appearance standards which is documented on his Enlisted Performance Evaluation. The character of the discharge shall change to Honorable based on the applicant’s service record.

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00695

    Original file (MD01-00695.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00695 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010420, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Recommended loss of 5 pounds per month and a total of 30 pounds within 180 days.990615: Counseling: Applicant assigned to the Weight Control Program to correct deficiency of not meeting height/weight standards. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020630

    Original file (20110020630.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * his discharge under chapter 18 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation) due to overweight was improper * he was unjustly discharged from the Army for failing to meet the body fat standards of Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program (AWCP)) * his chain of command failed to follow the provisions of the regulation prior to separating him * he should have been medically evaluated to determine if he should have been medically separated due to an injury he...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01370

    Original file (ND97-01370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01370 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Members not meeting physical readiness standards shall be required to participate in the command-directed physical conditioning program (Level I), which must consist of an exercise component and should also include other Health Promotion Program elements. c. In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that...