Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501041
Original file (MD0501041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01041

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050601. The Applicant requests the Discharge 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. In the acknowledgement letter the Applicant was informed that she was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, DC area. The Applicant did not respond.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051207. After a thorough review of the available 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) by reason of weight control failure.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I am interested in the Navy Reserves and would like to upgrade my Discharge which was based on unsatisfactory weight standards. I no longer have weight issues and would like to again serve my country. I would also like my RE Code to be reviewed and I ask the Board’s consideration to upgrade it to RE Code 2 or Better and also consider upgrading my discharge to Honorable. I am also in college and employed fulltime. I thank the Board for their time and consideration of my request.”

 Documentation
Only the service record book and medical record were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    19880822 – 19890326      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19890327             Date of Discharge: 19920904

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 03 05 08
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 93

 Highest Rank: LCpl                                  MOS: 6433

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.5 (7)                                Conduct: 4.4 (7)

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, Rifle Marksman Badge


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 :

890911:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Failure to meet height and weight standards.), necessary corrective actions explained (2 lbs per month for 6 months), sources of assistance provided, and disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
891201:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory progress while assigned to weight control program.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

900330:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory progress while assigned to weight control program.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

900625:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of May 90 because of being assigned to the Sqdn Weight Control Program. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

900625:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of June 90 because of being assigned to the Sqdn Weight Control Program. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

900625:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of July 90 because of being assigned to the Sqdn Weight Control Program. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

900927:  Medical Record Entry:
Height: 65: Weight: 152: Body Fat: 23.4 Max Weight: 142.
901026:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of August 90 because of being assigned to the Sqdn Weight Control Program. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

901026:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of September 90 because of being assigned to the Sqdn Weight Control Program. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

901026:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of October 90 because of being assigned to the Sqdn Weight Control Program. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

901105:  Applicant was assigned an Alternate Weight Standard of 155 lbs.

910710:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory progress while assigned to the weight control program), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and disciplinary and discharge warning issued. Applicant chose to make a statement. Statement not found in record.

910820:  Medical Record Entry:
         Height: 64”       Weight: 146      Body Fat: 24.4 Max Weight: 146
         Comments: 1) Recommend waiver to present weight [illegible] 2) Continue present PT program 3) Dietary modifications discussed.

911008:  Medical Record Entry:
         Height: 65”       Weight: 143      Body Fat: 23.8 Max Weight: 142
         Comments: 1) Recommend 1 pound weight loss next three months.

920708:  Medical Record Entry:
         Height: 65”       Weight: 173      Body Fat: 28.5
         Comments: “3 rd time on weight control. Previous waiver to 155 lbs. SNM does not desire to remain in USMC. Over max weight and body fat. Dietary consult 15 Jul 92. Return to unit for disposition.”

920708:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Recurring failure to conform to Marine Corps Wight Standards as evidenced by your current weight of 173 lbs, 18 lbs over your alternate weight of 155 lbs), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for administrative discharge action.

920803:  Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, directed the Applicant’s under honorable conditions (general) discharge by reason of failure to conform to weight standards.

Service Record Book did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920904 by reason of weight control failure (A) with a service characterization under honorable conditions (general). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

 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. T he Applicant was counseled and issued a retention warning on four occasions for exceeding Marine Corps height and weight standards. The Applicant was placed on weight control on three occasions. On 19920708, during the Applicant’s third period on weight control, the Applicant weighed 173 lbs with a body fat percentage of 28.5, exceeding her alternative maximum weight of 155 lbs by 18 lbs. The Applicant was also counseled for her ineligibility for promotion on six occasions due to being assigned to weight control. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service to honorable. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that she no longer has a “weight problem” and would like her RE code changed in order to reenlist. Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Reenlistment policy of the Marine Corps is promulgated by the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMEA, 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant contends that she is now employed fulltime and attending college. 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 Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

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. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to her discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.



 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. ALMAR 57/93 [CMC 161805ZFEB93] (enlisted separation policy for weight control failure).
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

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

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | MD03-00052

    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 | 2005_Marine | MD0500702

    Original file (MD0500702.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Further, on 20030518 (six months after being assigned to the program), the Applicant was counseled for not makings satisfactory progress and not returning to her prescribed weight and body fat standards. Clearly, the Applicant’s performance and conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, falls well below that required for an...

  • 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 | MD03-00535

    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 | 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019186

    Original file (20110019186.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 January 2010, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant in accordance with chapter 18 of Army Regulation 635-200 for failing to meet body fat standards, enrollment in the AWCP on 10 August 2009, and failing to make satisfactory progress. A body fat evaluation may also be done by unit personnel to assist in measuring progress. If health care personnel are unable to determine a medical reason for lack of weight loss—and if the individual is...

  • 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...