Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00499
Original file (MD00-00499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD00--00499

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000307, 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 001102. 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 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. July 31, 1998 I was discharged from the Marine Corps due to weight control failure. The reason for receiving a General/Under honorable conditions is a 2 year prior I stood NJP July 1, 1996. Details are enclosed in my discharge package.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Fifty-four pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                950407 - 950416  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950417               Date of Discharge: 980731

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 03 15
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 47

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.5 (8)                       Conduct: 4.4 (8)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960104:  Applicant identified as overweight and placed on weight control for 6 months.

 960702:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
 Specification: Had sexual intercourse with another married Marine.
Awarded Extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC. Extra duty for 45 days suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
960726:  Applicant granted a six month extension on weight control.

980311   Acknowledged her eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for promotion period April/May/June 1998 because of failure to maintain weight and height standard.

980306:  Applicant has been evaluated and appeared before a medical board and diagnosis is asthma. Limitations are: no running, aerobic activity, rifle range. Limited duty for 6 months.

980319:  Medical revised duty status recommended exercising at own pace. No PT, PFT, running, excess walking, or pull-ups, situps, squatting, bending or heavy lifting due to asthma.

980406:  Applicant's weight 198 (51 pounds overweight). Body fat: 36%.

980407:  Branch Medical Clinic found applicant's physical appearance is partially due to a pathological disorder. Applicant fit for participation in a physical exercise program per pulmonary medical recommendations. Recommended weight loss is realistic goal.

980413:  Applicant's physical condition does not appear to be due to a pathological disorder.

980413:  Applicant assigned to remedial physical fitness program for 3 months for the following reasons: To assist with attaining appropriate Marine Corps weight standards and in conjunction with being assigned to the squadron weight control program. Advised that weight/bodyfat goal must be reached by 13 July 98.

980413:  Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, overweight (current weight: 198 pounds, maximum weight by MCO 6100.10B is 147 pounds), advise of assistance available and corrective actions. Discharge warning issued.

980710   Training officer advised the commanding officer that her work performance has been outstanding, but that the applicant has failed to maintain the standards as set forth in MCO 6100.10, Weight Control and Military Appearance and administrative separation is recommended.

980715:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. The basis for discharge is your unsatisfactory performance in failing to meet the required height and weight standards.

980715   Applicant advised of her 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.

980715:  Commanding officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

980727:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing] authorized the applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason unsatisfactory performance.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980731 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to unsatisfactory performance due to not meeting the height and weight standards. (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant was properly discharged for unsatisfactory performance based on her inability to meet height and weight standards. The Board found that the applicant had an NJP one year and 3 months into her enlistment. The Board also found that the applicant had above average proficiency and conduct marks of 4.5 and 4.5 and was diagnosed with asthma by a medical board, which may have limited her ability to lose weight. The Board voted 3 to 2 to upgrade the discharge to honorable based on the applicant’s service record. Full relief is granted.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 to Present, states that a Marine may be separated if the Marine is unqualified for further service by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

B. 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.

C 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.

D. 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.

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
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00469

    Original file (MD02-00469.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00469 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant was a good marine, not withstanding the issue of weight control, this is a veteran that served in a combat zone. The basis for discharge is the failure to conform to Marine Corps height, weight, and body fat standards, as evidenced by the failure to attain and maintain the prescribed weight goal and/or...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00546

    Original file (MD01-00546.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I received a General Under Honorable Conditions just based on my weight problem. 990804: GCMCA [MCB Hawaii] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the applicant's discharge was directed with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to weight control failure. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00233

    Original file (MD04-00233.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 030311: Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) due to weight control failure. The Applicant’s service was marred by a failure to comply with Marine Corps standards despite three assignments to weight control.

  • 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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-01297

    Original file (MD03-01297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Discharge warning issued.990331: Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure to make progress while assigned to Weight control program, advised of assistance available and corrective actions. Discharge warning issued.990530: Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure to make progress while assigned to Weight control program, advised of assistance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00597

    Original file (MD04-00597.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant ’s second assignment.020515: Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Marine Corps weight control program as evidenced by continued weight gain and only minimal weight loss, failure to adhere to my diet and weight loss plan, advise of assistance available and corrective actions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was...