Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00535
Original file (MD03-00535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. 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. The Applicant requests 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 20031229. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. 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, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “During the period of time before my discharge, my wife was having a very difficult pregnancy. She needed a lot of emotional support and also my physical presence. Therefore, I had to commute daily from our home in Alhambra to Camp Pendleton. Due to the large amount of traffic between our home & the base, I would spend as much as 4 hours a day commuting. I therefore could not maintain the very high level of physical activity my body needed to stay within the weight standards, and in short time I exceeded them.
Although I went through a rigorous weight reduction program on base and gave every effort to reduce my weight during my off time, I was still unable to reduce my weight enough to conform to the weight limits. I was therefore given a General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions.
I’m asking that you please consider the extenuating circumstances regarding my performance in the area stated above, and change my discharge to an Honorable Discharge.”

2. “I also ask that when making your decision you take into account my 53 months of good service. During which time I received two Meritorious Masts, Good Conduct Medal, Rifle Expert Badge (2 nd Award), and that I served oversees with pride during the Gulf War when I received a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon & The National Defense Medal.

I hope the information I provided will be useful in helping you make your decision and I respectfully await your response.

Thankfully Yours, D_ R_ (Applicant)”

 Documentation
Only the Applicant’s service and medical records were 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)                870807 - 880131  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880201               Date of Discharge: 920722

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 05 22 (Does not exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 10 plus 1 semester of college
AFQT: 70

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.5 (10)             Conduct: 4.4 (10)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge (2 nd Award), SSDR, MM(2), NDSM, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 21

 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 par. 6206.l.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
890328:  To unauthorized absence.

890417:  Surrendered from unauthorized absence.

890511:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0600, 890328 to 2330, 890417 from appointed place of duty, to wit: WTI, MCAS YUMA, AZ.
 Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to pay grade E-2. Not appealed.
900410:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (specifically, inability to maintain sufficient funds in checking account and failure to comply with orders requiring checking in promptly upon completion of TAD). Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910312:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (specifically, failure to render a salute to a commissioned officer – when confronted by the officer your attitude reflected disrespect and insubordination). Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

911025:  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.
911118:  Medical Dept, MCAS Camp Pendleton, CA: HT- 68¾”, max WT 186 pounds, current WT – 219 pounds, 23.2% body fat. Over weight, over body fat percentage. Recommend 5-6 lbs loss 6 months for total loss of 33 pounds. Dietician consult sent. Return to counseling as necessary.
920227:  Acknowledged eligibility but not recommended for promotion to CPL for month of FEB 1992 because of assignment to the Squadron Weight Control Program.
920424:  Medical Dept, MCAS Camp Pendleton, CA: Pt had weight eval 18NOV91, then WT 219 pounds with 23.2% body fat. Now gained 10 pounds with Body Fat percentage increased to 25.2%. Pt not appearing motivated to remain with Marines or lose weight.

920511:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: On or about 24 Jan 92, aboard MCB Camp Pendleton, violate Base Order 5101.3P, by operating a motor vehicle while his driving privileges were revoked.
 Awarded extra duties for 45 days and reduction in pay grade to E-2 (reduction suspended for 3 months). Not appealed.
920615:  GCMCA [CG, 3D MAW] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance – Failure to conform to weight standards.

 [ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD BOOK AND APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

 Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920722 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).

 Issues 1 and 2. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions, and adverse counseling entries on other occasions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. While he may feel that his daily commute was a factor that contributed to his actions, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief is not warranted.
The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident 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. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.












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 “ 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 | MD03-00125

    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 | 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 | MD03-00052

    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 | 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 | 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 | MD01-00313

    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 | 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 | 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 | 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.