Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00534
Original file (MD01-00534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00534

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010315, 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 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 unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Weight Control Failure - involuntary discharge directed by established directive (no board entitlement), authority: ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93].
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. Dear Distinguished Members of the Review Board: This is a formal request to have my discharge upgraded from General Under Honorable Conditions to Honorable. In my 3 1/2 years in the military I had accomplished many things and received such awards as Meritorious Mast and metals as the National Defense Service Metal and Good Conduct Metal. Upon my separation from the distinguished Marine Corps, I was assured that even though my discharge was General Under Honorable Conditions I would still be eligible for my GI Bill. Later, to find out once I had enrolled in school and taken out student loans my request for the GI Bill was denied, due to my discharge status. The only reason my discharge wasn't Honorable was due to weight standards. Throughout my military career my weight had always been and issue, but it never stopped me from achieving my goals or serving my country even in the face of war (Desert Shield/Storm 1990-1991). I feel my discharge was inequitable due to the fact that it was based solely on my weight and not on the many accomplishments while serving this great country. Should this panel find it in your hearts to grant my request this will relieve a significant burden off of me and my family. Thank you for your time. Semper Fi, Respectfully
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of verification of participation in Operation Desert Shield/Storm

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                880217 - 881213  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 881214               Date of Discharge: 920522

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 09
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 50

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3 (8)                       Conduct: 4.2 (8)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, MM, NDSM, SASM with 2 Stars, NUC, GCM, KLM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Weight Control Failure - involuntary discharge directed by established directive (no board entitlement), authority: ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93].

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900202:  Applicant assigned to weight control/distribution program and directed t meet the following weight reduction goal: 5 pounds per month. Your goal weight is 181 pounds.
900226:  Applicant's physical condition does not appear to be due to a pathological disorder.

901019:  Applicant granted a six month extension on the weight control program.

900310:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, failed to maintain his maximum weight of 181 lbs as evidenced by his recent weigh-in of 207 lbs on 900202. Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

 920130:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification 1: Unauthorized absence from 1601, 21Jan92 to 2041, 22Jan92 (1 day/surrendered).
Awarded forfeiture of $440.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC. Not appealed.
920427:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general). The factual basis for the recommendation was your failure to meet established weight goals within the prescribed time. Your maximum weight under MCO 6100.10A is 181 pounds. On 13 February 1990, you were assigned to the weight control program at a weight 207 pounds. This is your second assignment to the program. On 19 October 1990, you were granted a 6 month extension on the program. As of 27 January 1992, you weighed 220 pounds.

920427:  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.

920427:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). The factual basis for the recommendation was your failure to meet established weight goals within the prescribed time. Your maximum weight under MCO 6100.10A is 181 pounds. On 13 February 1990, you were assigned to the weight control program at a weight 207 pounds. This is your second assignment to the program. On 19 October 1990, you were granted a 6 month extension on the program. As of 27 January 1992, you weighed 220 pounds.
920512:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

920512:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing] 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 920522 under honorable conditions (general) 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 proper and equitable (C and D).

 Issue 1. The applicant states his discharge was inequitable because it was based on solely on his inability to meet weight standards. However, administrative discharges for weight control failure may be characterized as under honorable conditions (general). The Board finds no evidence that the discharge is improper or inequitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. Relief denied.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93] revised enlisted separation policy for weight control failure. It cancelled paragraph 6206.1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual.

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 | 2006_Marine | MD0600292

    Original file (MD0600292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930106: Counseling: Applicant informed by Commanding Officer that Applicant is recommended but not eligible for reenlistment due to assignment to weight control and that he will be assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code upon separation.Service Record Book contains a partial Administrative Discharge package. According to applicable regulations, a member may be involuntarily separated for failure to meet height/weight standards when the sole reason for separation is failure to meet height/weight...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00442

    Original file (MD99-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00442 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 931012: Medical Department: Weight 200.

  • 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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00639

    Original file (MD03-00639.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Assigned to Battalion Weight Control Program with an initial weight of 225 lbs. Body fat is 25.9%.940328: Applicant granted a 3 month extension of the Battalion Weight Control Program.940621: Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. 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 or equitable (C and D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by...

  • 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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00661

    Original file (MD01-00661.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 920714 under honorable conditions (general) due to weight control failure (A). 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 not equitable (C and D).The Board found the applicant’s discharge was based solely on his failure to meet height/weight standards, and that his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00754

    Original file (MD04-00754.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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 911025 - 920329 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920330 Date of Discharge: 940819 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 04 21 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records,...

  • 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 | 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...

  • 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.