Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600859
Original file (MD0600859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LCpl, USMC
MD06-00859

 Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request :

Application Received:                               20 060609
Narrative Reason for Separation:                          
Character of Service:                               
Discharge Authority :                                MARCORSEPMAN 6206
Last Duty Assignment/ Command at Discharge:       2DTSBN 2DFSSG USMARFORLANT

Applicant’s Request:
          Narrative Reason change to:               mEDICAL RETIRED
         Characterization chang e to:               
         Review Requested :                          
Representation:                                             


Decision:

Date of Decision:                                            20070523
 Location of Board:                                  Washington D.C.
Complete Service Record:                                   
Complete Medical Record:                          
Complete Discharge Package :                       

Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge:     
Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge:        

By a vote of the Characterization shall .     
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .


Summary of Service :

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMC R (DEP)                               19980630 - 19980720      
Active: NONE
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment:                                 19980721
Years Contracted :                                   ;      
Date of Discharge:                                  20020206
Length of Service:                                  03 Yrs 06 Mos 16 Days Does not exclude lost time, if any.
Time Lost During This Period:                     

Education Level:                                   
Age at this Enlistment:                                    
AFQT:                                                 78
MOS:                                                   3043
Highest Rate/Rank:                                   LCpl

P roficiency / Conduct (# of marks)                           4.2 (6) / 4.1 (6)

Awards and Decorations (as listed on the DD Form 214):
RIFLE EXPERT BADGE, MARINE CORPS GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL




Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation

20000908:        Applicant determined to not meet acceptable weight and or body fat standards , weight 184, body fat 27%. Referred to credentialed health care provider for medical evaluation .
20000911:        Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider found Applicant’s personal appearance is not due to a pathological disorder. Applicant is fit for participation in a physical exercise program. The recommended loss of 1 pound per week and the total of 20 pounds within 6 months is a realistic goal.

 20000911:        Applicant directed to meet the following reduction goal: 1 pound per week. Applicant’s weight goal is 165 pounds to be attained no later than 6 months from this date.
20001212:        Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct ( f ailure to be at your appointed place of duty. Specifically you lied about your wife doctor’s appointment, and failure to follow detailed instructions given by your platoon Sgt. You were given time off to take your wife to her appointment and were also told to call back to your section to give your status for accountability on 20001120. You failed to do so; instead you left early for the 96 that started at noon p utting yourself in a UA status for five hours. This is clearly a violation of the UCMJ. This behavior is unsatisfactory and will not be tolerated. Accountability is paramount to the Marine Corps mission. This conduct is unbecoming of a Marine, and does not conform to good order and discipline of the Marine Corps) . N ecessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, discharge warning issued.
20010111:        Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (You have been assigned to the Marine Corps weight control program for a period of six months. Your assignment started 20000911; during this assignment you have not shown any improvement. You understood that failure to comply with Marine Corps height/weight requirements may result in administrative separation or reduction. The fact that this problem still exists demonstrates a serious lack of concern and maturity, not to mention professionalism on your part.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.

 20010525 :        Commanding Officer, 2d Transportation Support Battalion, recommended that Applicant be administratively separated.
         [Extracted from CG , 2d FSSG, letter of 20010612. ]
20010601:        Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group, retained Lance Corporal S_ (Applicant) in the Marine Corps for an additional six months and directed that LCpl S_ continue on weight control program. Authorized CO, 2d TSBn to reinitiate separation proceedings if LCpl S_ failed to conform with, or make reasonable progress towards, height/weight standards.

20010712 :        Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct ( Exceeding Marine Corps height/weight standards. Effective 20010612 you were granted a six (6) month extension from the Commanding General, 2D Force Service Support Group. During this period, you will continue on your current weight control program. If at the end of this period if you should fail to conform with, or make reasonable progress towards, height/weight standards; administrative separation will be re initiated . ), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.

20011206:        Applicant’s current weight 218 pounds, body fat 34%.
         [NDRB note: Maximum weight for Applicant (66 inches) is 170 pounds.]


Medical Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation
Record not available to the Board.

Elements of Discharge:

Discharge Process :                                 
Date Notified :                                        20011217
Basis for Discharge :                               
Least Favorable Characterization:                         
Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation :   
Record Supports Narrative Reason :                          PRESUMED

Date Applicant R esponded to N otification:                 20011219
Rights E lected at N otification :
Consult with Counsel                      
Administrative Board                      
Obtain Copies                             
Submit Statement(s) (date submitted )      ( 20020104 )

Administrative Board Date:                        

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20020104 )
SJA review (date):                                   ( not dated)
Separation Authority (date):                        COMMANDER, 2D FORCE SERVICE SUPPORT GROUP ( 20010612 )
Narrative reason directed :                                  
Characterization directed:                                  (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)
Date Applicant Discharged:                         20020206

Additional Information Considered by Board

 Type of d ocumentation submitted by t he Applicant and considered by the Board
        Document Type                                        #Pages
 Related to Period of Service Under Review :
          Service/Medical Record :                              1
         Other Period of Service:                                    0
Related to Post-Service Period:
          Community Service :                                   0
         Education :                                           0
         Employment :                                          0
         Health /Medical :                                       0
         Character Statements:                               0
         Criminal Records Checks:                                    0
         Additional Statements from Applicant:             0
Other Documentation      (Describe Below)                 2

Total Number of Pages:                              3

D escription of Other Documentation:
        Representative statement

Discussion of Discharge Review

 In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.
Applicant’s Issues, as summarized by the Board:
1. Desires benefits.
 2. Discharge inequitable because “ based on opinions of untrained individuals in discharges of military records.”
3. Discharge improper because did not receive a Physical Evaluation Board.
4 . Discharge improper because medical problems prevented compliance with height and weight standards.
5 . Post-service conduct.

Regarding Issue 1, t he Board determined that this is not an i ssue which can form the basis of relief for the Applicant or that the Board did not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding th is issue .

Regarding Issue 2, the Board determined it could not respond because the meaning of the item is unclear. An issue is unclear if a reasonable person familiar with the discharge review process cannot understand it after a review of the materials considered.

Applicant’s Decisional Issues:

Issue 3 : . Per regulations the initiation and submission of medical boards are at the discretion of the individual physician. There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. Further the evidence of record does not indicate that proper authority erred by not initiating a medical board for the Applicant. Therefore, the Board found the Applicant’s issue without merit. Relief denied.

Issue 4 : . When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct, discipline and performance. The NDRB generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s alleged condition, any implied incorrect diagnosis, nor the medical treatment given to the Applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the Applicant’s substandard performance. In the Applicant’s case, there is some evidence in the record that indicates that his failure to maintain weight and body fat standards was not due to a medical condition, and there is no evidence in the available record to indicate that the Applicant could not meet standards. In fact, the Applicant was not separated for mere failure to maintain standards; he was separated for unsatisfactory performance due to failing to maintain standards because of apathy and/or lack of discipline. The Applicant’s state ment of medical issues , by itself, is not sufficient credible evidence sufficient to refute the presumption of regularity in this case. Relief not warranted.

Issue 5 : . 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. 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 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. T he Applicant has not provided documentation to support his claims post-service conduct for the Board to even consider whether an upgrade may be warranted . Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 September 2001 until Present.
B . 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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600068

    Original file (MD0600068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant advised to loss 16 pounds or 5 percent body fat and maintain for 6-month BCP assignment period.021029: First Endorsement to CO’s ltr of 29 Oct 02. I am recommending that he receive a General under honorable conditions discharge.This recommendation is based upon the respondent’s failure to meet Marine Corps weight standards set forth by the Body Composition Program (BCP) . According to the reference, a Marine assigned to the BCP on two separate occasions (e.g., first and second...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500696

    Original file (MD0500696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dr. S_ reviewed my military records concerning the weight problem and my post-Iraq questionnaire and his opinion is that I have been in denial of my psychiatric problems, admittedly some of which pre-exist my military duty and all of the ADD associated problems, but that my other problems relate to Iraq-related PTSD. 031031: Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 271 assigned Applicant to a 6-month BCP as a second assignment. The...

  • 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...

  • 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 | 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600323

    Original file (MD0600323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. ” APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or from an attached document/letter to the Board: “ I Respectfully Request that my Discharge of general under honorable be changed to an Honorable. If thyroid studies normal, would concur with...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600580

    Original file (MD0600580.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The unit’s Remedial Physical Conditioning Program (RCCP) for 6 months.030702: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (reassignment to the Marine Corps BCP, specifically, failed to properly maintain body fat composition standards as required by MCO P6100.12 for a second time), advised that this subsequent assignment is for a 6-month period, necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, discharge warning (for either weight control or...

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500509

    Original file (MD0500509.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Concerning your assignment to the Marine Corps Body composition program. Applicant counseled that he will be processed for administrative separation due to failure to maintain the Marine Corps standards. The Commanding Office is recommending that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions).

  • 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...