Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00619
Original file (MD00-00619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00619

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 00417, 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 001201. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned an impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change. The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: "6215" vice "6206", Block 26, Separation Code, should read: "HCR1" vice "JHJ4", and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: “WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE” vice “UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1. My physical condition was being reviewed by MEB. I was on a profile which severely limited my activity and ability to exercise. I was on the Weight Management Program during this same period. I had previously been reduced in rank for a failure on the program. Following the reduction I was placed on limited duty which led to the MEB.

2. The moment my MEB results declared me fit for duty I was called in for a weight check. I failed the weight check and within one week was notified that I was being discharged. The commander who recommended the discharge was the same individual who denied me a profile which was recommended by a physical.

3. I completed five and half years of a six year enlistment. Aside from the Weight Management issue I had no disciplinary action. I had the highest ratings allowed for someone on Weight Management.

4. I believe I should have been given an Honorable discharge because I was a good Marine who had a weight problem. I enlisted over my max and was barely under following boot camp. I struggled throughout my military career and did the best I could to try to stay under the max - to the point that I developed problems for which I now receive VA compensation. (40% - for asthma, ankle, knees)

 Documentation
Only the applicant's service and medical records are reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                930326 - 930606  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930607               Date of Discharge: 981210

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 06 04
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 63

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.2                           Conduct: 4.0

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, MM, LOA(2), 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: MARCORSEPMAN 6215. [Administratively corrected]

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930326:  Entrance exam: Height - 71½", weight 202 pounds, exceeded weight standards by 5 pounds. Waiver granted for enlistment.

950227:  Placed on the weight management program at 218 pounds.
950501:  Applicant acknowledged that his current weight/physical appearance does not appear to be due to a pathological disorder and further acknowledged that it is his responsibility to have weight/body fat percentage recorded by the S-3 training section at a minimum once ever other week.
951127:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct - specifically, failure to meet Marine Corps weight standards - current weight is 215 lbs. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960117:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion due to being on the weight control program.

960401:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct - specifically, not being at appointed place of duty on time. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960405:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion due to being on the weight control program.

 960507:  JDACC: No treatment required.

 960510:  Counseled concerning 6 months extension on the Weight Control Program. Advised he will be processed for separation in the event of unsatisfactory progress or failure to meet the weight goal of 203 lbs by new control date of 960904.
960621:  Counseled concerning failure to make satisfactory progress on the Weight Control Program - current weight is 237lbs, 19 lbs over start weight and 34 lbs over goal weight. Corrective actions explained and sources of assistance provided.
960718:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion due to weight control program.

960823:  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 warning issued.

960919:  CO Marine Wing Communications 38 recommended to the CG, 3DMAW, via the CO, MACG 38, MCAS, El Toro, that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of weight control failure.

961017:  CO, MACG 38 returned the recommendation for discharge to CO, MWC 38, retaining the applicant and giving the applicant another opportunity to bring his weight and personal appearance within Marine Corps standards.
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. Specifically, demonstrated lack of judgment and self-discipline and being UA from your appointed place of duty. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary warning issued.

970820:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion due to weight control program

980213:  Applicant evaluated and appeared before a Medical Board. Diagnosis is Right Shoulder Impingement, Right Ankle Instability, Asthma.
         Limitations are: No Run, Marching, Drill, PFT, Field Duty, Push/Pull-ups, Non-Deployable, Weapons Use.
         Medical Board Disposition: Additional 6 months Limited Duty and Refer Medical Board for Departmental Review (BUPERS/CMC).

980714:  Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found applicant fit to continue on active duty.

980622:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the July promotion because of weight control.

980812:  PEB advised applicant that no additional medical evidence beyond that previously considered by the Record Review Panel or other information materially warranting a change to the previous findings.

980828:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance of Duties

980831:  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.

980901:  Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) due to unsatisfactory performance. The factual basis for the recommendation was due to weight control failure.

980908:  OIC statement: "LCpl (Applicant) performs his duties as Mail Clerk in an outstanding manner however, he has demonstrated a clear lack of discipline through his inability to meet and maintain physical weight standards as set forth by the United States Marine Corps.

         This Marine is plagued with a long and distinguished history, to include several formal and informal counselings, numerous Pg 11's, continuous weight control assignments, and multiple non-recommendation's for promotion. He was first placed on weight control in May 1995, and three years later, has shown so sign of improvement. It is apparent that he is not willing to conform to those standards expected of a Marine and therefore it is my recommendation that he be administratively discharged in accordance with the reference with a characterization of General Undr Honorable conditions."

980909:  1stSgt, Hdqtrs Detachment statement: "LCpl (Applicant) is an average Marine who does what he is told and performs his job in an average manner. Since his initial assignment to the Weight Control Program in May of 1995, he as been counseled on numerous occasions about his dietary measures and exercise routine to rectify his failure to meet Marine Corps weight standards.

         LCpl (Applicant) was afforded the opportunity to overcome his weight problem. He is not responsive to counseling and shows no interest in losing the weight. I recommend that LCpl (Applicant) be administratively discharged per the reference with a General under Honorable conditions. His actions openly imply that he does not want to be a Marine." K. C. B_

980814:  OIC, HDQTRS DET MWCS-38 provided CO, MWCS-38 with all the circumstances to determined whether LCpl (Applicant) merits administrative separation for reason of failure to maintain weight standards.
981010:  GCMCA [CO, MACG 38] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance of Duties due to weight control failure.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 981210 with a general under honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties due to weight control failure (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 not proper (C and D).

The Board reviewed the applicant’s case and found that the discharge was not based on the type warranted by service record. He had no NJP’s and an average of 4.2/4.0 proficiency and conduct marks, respectively. His marks clearly warranted an honorable discharge, regardless of his weight control issues. Relief granted.
 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6215, WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00637

    Original file (MD02-00637.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 920117 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). No other narrative reason other than that of misconduct for drug use more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00930

    Original file (MD03-00930.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 980130: CO referred Applicant to Credentialed Health Care Provider since he does not meet acceptable Marine Corps Standards with a weight of 229 lbs and body fat of 33.0 percent, with maximum weight of 186 lbs and advised Applicant that the loss of 7.1 lbs per month and total of 43 pounds within a 6 month period is a realistic goal. [Failure to conform to Marine Corps height...

  • 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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00313

    Original file (MD01-00313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unsatisfactory Performance-Failure to conform to weight standards (administrative discharge board not required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN, Para 6206.1. Assistance/sources provided, but discharge warning issued.900214: Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 920320 under honorable conditions (general) due to...

  • 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0501041

    Original file (MD0501041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. rd time on weight control. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500756

    Original file (MD0500756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Request a medical evaluation be conducted to determine the Applicant’s medical status for BCP and Remedial Physical Conditioning Program (RPCP) participation. [Your unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Marine Corps Body Composition Program. Therefore, the narrative reason for separation, as stated on the DD214, is incorrect and should be changed from weight control failure to unsatisfactory performance.On 20021105 the Applicant was assigned to Marine Corps Body Composition...

  • 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 | 1999_Marine | MD99-00879 (7)

    Original file (MD99-00879 (7).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter of Personal Recommendation from Sgt M___ P___ Copies from Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (2pgs) Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Copy of Discharge Package (8pgs) Letter from Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider of Sgt P____ Copy of Purpose of Scope of the Navy Discharge Review Board and the Board for Correction of Naval Records...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00879

    Original file (MD99-00879.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter of Personal Recommendation from Sgt M___ P___ Copies from Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (2pgs) Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Copy of Discharge Package (8pgs) Letter from Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider of Sgt P____ Copy of Purpose of Scope of the Navy Discharge Review Board and the Board for Correction of Naval Records...