Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00313
Original file (MD01-00313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00313

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010117, 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 010906. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was three to two that the character of the discharge shall not change. 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.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The only problem that I had as a Marine was my weight. The percentage above the requirements was less than 5 percent actually I went as high as 20 or 21% body fat with the requirement being 10%. I did my job well as a Marine even with the torn maniscus that I experienced in Boot Camp. I was a good Marine with the exception of my weight. I do not believe that I should receive a less than honorable for my performance. I tried to conform to the weight requirements and was not able to do so. However, I did every thing to fulfill my duties as Marine.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
41 pages of Medical and Service Record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                880507 - 881206  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 881207               Date of Discharge: 920320

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 03 14
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 54

 Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.31 (9)             Conduct: 4.13 (9)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NDSM, SSDR, Marksman Rifle Badge

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unsatisfactory Performance-Failure to conform to weight standards (administrative discharge board not required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN, Para 6206.1

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

890822:  Assigned to the Battalion Weight Control Program. Initial Weight - 195 pounds, % Body Fat - 20.7, Max Allowable Weight - 163 pounds. Instructed to lose 5.3 pounds per month for next 6 months to attain maximum allowable weight. Assistance/sources provided, but discharge warning issued.
900214:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, improper management of your checking account which result in returned checks. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

900221:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion for month of FEB 90 because of unsat weight control progress.

900226:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion for month of MAR 90 because of unsat weight control progress.

900816:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCPL for month of SEP 90 because lacks initiative.

900919:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCPL for month of OCT 90 because of poor judgement.

901026:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCPL for month of NOV 90 because due to judgment.

910102:  Counseled for dereliction in the performance of official duties and my disrespectful attitude when dealing with seniors. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910118:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCPL for month of FEB 91 due to INITIATIVE.

911107:  Counseled for deficiencies; exceeds weight standards. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

911204:  Medical Reevaluation: Member reexamined and found to be overweight. Not due to a pathological disorder.

911217:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion for month of JAN 92 due to weight control.

920116:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion for month of MAR 90 because of unsat weight control progress.
911203:  Command requested permission to discharge applicant for failure to make satisfactory progress while on the Company/Battalion weight control program. Member's maximum allowable weight is 165 lbs. Current weight is 203 lbs with body fat of 22.1 percent - 30 lbs over weight. When placed on program on 22AUG89 - member weighed 195 lbs with a body fat percentage of 20.7%. On 29 AUG 90 member enrolled in Weight Control/Personal Appearance Level II outpatient program at Camp Butler, Okinawa, Japan and successfully completed the program on 1 MAY 90
920127:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general). The factual basis for the recommendation was due to unsatisfactory performance - failure to conform to weight standards.

920127:  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.
920214:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). The factual basis for the recommendation was unsatisfactory performance - specifically failure to conform to military weight standards.

920226:  GCMCA [CG, MCB, Camp Pendleton] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance – Failure to conform to weight standards.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920320 under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance – failure to conform to 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 and equitable (C and D).

 The applicant’s issue states: “The only problem that I had as a Marine was my weight. The percentage above the requirements was less than 5 percent actually I went as high as 20 or 21% body fat with the requirement being 10%. I did my job well as a Marine even with the torn maniscus that I experienced in Boot Camp. I was a good Marine with the exception of my weight. I do not believe that I should receive a less than honorable for my performance. I tried to conform to the weight requirements and was not able to do so. However, I did every thing to fulfill my duties as Marine.” After careful review the Board found the applicant’s discharge- Under Honorable Conditions (General)- appropriately characterized the applicant’s service. The applicant was afforded ample opportunity to meet the Marine Corps weight standards and failed to do so. A medical doctor determined there was no pathological disorder underlying the applicant’s overweight condition. Relief is not warranted.
The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. There is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended .







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 920309, except for subparagraph 1, which was retroactively changed by ALMAR 57/93, effective 920310) .

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 “ afls10.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 | MD03-00125

    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 | 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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00535

    Original file (MD03-00535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00535 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation Only the Applicant’s service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • 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 | 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.

  • 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0500882

    Original file (MD0500882.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00882 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050419. • I was also awarded the Marine Corp Good Conduct Medal on 3 Jun 89 (while I was on the weight control program) – just one year before my separation. However, I feel the characterization of my service for separation purposes was based solely on the Pro/Con marks (3.3/2.9) I received immediately following the above referenced NJP proceedings – without regard to the nature of my previous service for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00778

    Original file (MD03-00778.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Discharge warning issued.961017: Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure to make progress while assigned to Weight control program, advised of assistance available and corrective actions. 971022: Weight is 257 lbs, 30% body fat.980107: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for an honorable discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00364

    Original file (MD02-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00364 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020130, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 900424: Medical record: A: Ankle sprain. 900808: Weight Control Survey Chart: 235 pounds.900811: NHCP: Complaint: Ankle swelling inside of cast.

  • 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...