Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00853
Original file (MD03-00853.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00853

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030224. 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040224. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I would like to change my status to Honorable. I was discharged based on weight problem. No other reasons were ever mentioned.”
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)                911002 - 920407  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920408               Date of Discharge: 960620

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 02 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.5 (10)                      Conduct: 4.3 (10)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: CAR, JMUA, GCM, NDSM, AFEM, SSDR, MM

 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 :

930412:  Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, use of an unauthorized cleaning substance on the M249, advised of assistance available and corrective actions. Discharge warning issued.

 950223:  Assigned to the weight control program.

950223:  Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure to make progress while assigned to Weight control program, advised of assistance available and corrective actions. Weight, 220 lbs. Height, 73”. 25.6% BF. Weight goal is 209 lbs. Discharge warning issued.
950526:  Acknowledged his eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl because of being assigned to the Weight Control Program.
950818:  Acknowledged his eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl because of being assigned to the Weight Control Program.
960315:  Acknowledged his eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl because of being assigned to the Weight Control Program.
960422:  Current weight is 237 lbs.

960424:  Medical Eval, (Branch Clinic, MCRD, PISC): Pt in for weight control eval. Overweight condition is not due to a pathological condition.

960605:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties. The basis for discharge is unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the weight control program. Applicant does not qualify for separation based upon weight control failure, because he did not make a reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height/weight standards by adhering to the regimen prescribed by an appropriately credentialed health care provider (ACHCP).

960605:  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.

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. Applicant failed to make satisfactory progress while assigned to the weight control program.

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 Applicant's discharge was directed with a general (under honorable conditions ) by reason unsatisfactory performance due to failing to make a reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height and weight standards.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960620 under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance of duties (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. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. 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 adverse counseling entries and his failure to make progress while assigned to a weight control program. The Applicant was assigned the task to meet a Marine Corps weight standard. His Commanding Officer determined that his documented lack of effort in accomplishing this task adversely affected unit readiness and/or mission accomplishment. The Applicant’s conduct falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate. It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due. Relief denied.

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. 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 | 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 | 2000_Marine | MD00-00642

    Original file (MD00-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 response to applicant’s issue 1, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active...

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0501570

    Original file (MD0501570.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (“I [Applicant] further understand that I have been recommended for Administrative discharge due to failing the Marine Corps weight control program two times and being assigned for the third time.”) Applicant chooses not to make a statement.970312: Commanding Officer, Marine Air Control Squadron 2, notifies Applicant that he is assigned to the squadron Physical Training Platoon as a result of not being within Marine Corps height and weight standards. Weight: 237. Not due to pathological...

  • 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 | 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 | MD04-00664

    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 | 2005_Marine | MD0500447

    Original file (MD0500447.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered: Applicant’s DD Form 214 Two pages from Applicant’s service record Character reference, dated November 15, 2004 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 940114 - 940619 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940620 Date of Discharge: 970725 Length of Service...