Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01097
Original file (MD04-01097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01097

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040622. 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 20041222. 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)/Unsatisfactory Performance - Unsatisfactory Performance of duties (administrative discharge board not required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.3.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None             
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                920824 - 930822  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930823               Date of Discharge: 950801

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 73

 Highest Rank: PFC                          MOS: 6541

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.4 (4)                       Conduct: 4.3 (4)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unsatisfactory Performance - Unsatisfactory performance of duties (administrative discharge board not required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.3

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events

 :

940405:  Medical Eval: No medical problem - fit for remedial physical fitness training. Weight: 194. Body Fat: 22.4% Max Weight: 186.

940406:  Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure to meet Marine Corps weight standards, advise of assistance available and corrective actions. Discharge warning issued.

940502:  [Training officer] advised the commanding officer that Applicant failed to make appropriate progress from 940419 to 940502.

941012:  Counseled concerning your 6 month extension to Marine Corps Height and Weight Standards Program. Advise of assistance available and corrective actions. Discharge warning issued.

950320:  Counseled concerning general deficiency, specifically, failure to make satisfactory progress while assigned to the weight control program. Administrative separation warning issued.

950412:  Counseled concerning substandard performance, specifically failure to meet Marine Corps Height and Weight Standards. Being processed for administrative separation.

950711:  Counseled this date concerning substandard performance, specifically lack of progress while assigned to PTP. You have demonstrated a lack of motivation and generally poor attitude toward improving your physical fitness and you have made no progress towards being able to consistently pass the PFT or being removed from PTP.

950615:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties. The basis for discharge is your unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the weight control program. You do not qualify for separation based upon weight control failure because you have not made a reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height/weight standards by adhering to the regimen proscribed by an Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider and your Commanding Officer.
950615:  Applicant advised of 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.

950628:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory performance of duties.

950721:  GCMCA [CG, 2MAW] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the Applicant's discharge was directed with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory performance of duties.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950801 under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance due to weight control failure (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 (D and E).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 When the service of a Marine has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A General discharge 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. The Applicant’s service was marred by a failure to make a reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height and weight standards. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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 P1900.16D), effective 890627 until 950817, except for subparagraph 1, which was retroactively changed by ALMAR 57/93, effective 920310.
B. ALMAR 57/93 (CMC 161805Z FEB 93), REVISED ENLISTED SEPARATION POLICY FOR WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 “ 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
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023


Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01085

    Original file (MD99-01085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000424. th Marine Division (Rein)] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the applicant's discharge was directed with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason unsatisfactory performance due to unsatisfactory performance of duties. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D),...

  • 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 | 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901895

    Original file (MD0901895.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant was not separated for medical reasons but for failure to meet assigned weight and body fat standards.The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 to 31 August 2001, however, does allow for an Honorable discharge for servicemembers separated for unsatisfactory performance (paragraph 6206).After a review of the Applicant’s service record, the NDRB did find that his service met the standard for honorable conduct. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00471

    Original file (MD01-00471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00471 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010227, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable . Body fat 28%.930707: Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO's NJP on 23Apr93. The Board found that the applicant was discharged for his unsatisfactory performance while on weight control.

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700259

    Original file (MD0700259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant DID NOT CONFORM TO Marine Corps weight standards. The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service was marred six discharge warnings and a failure to conform to Marine Corps weight and appearance standards. NOT FOUND IN RECORD Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s)...

  • 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...

  • 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 | 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01173

    Original file (MD04-01173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20020627 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to...