Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600260
Original file (ND0600260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00260

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051130 . 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 designated American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061214 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the characterization of the Applicant’s service was inequitable. The Board’ s vote was unanimous that the discharge shall change to Honorable by reason of weight control failure .










PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:
“ Weight Control failure – Borderline diabetic military I am service connected 20% for Diabetes currently while serving had difficulty controlling my weight due to health Condition of diabetes – (borderline at time of service) Hindered me trying to do physical expectations of my duties. ”
Issues submitted by Applicant’s representative ( American Legion ) :
“Equity Issue: Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part IV, Paragraph 403 m (7), we request, on behalf of this former member, the Board’s clemency relief with an up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service conduct.


In accordance with Title 32, CFR, section 724.116 and SECNVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue(s) and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.

Essentially, as noted on DD Form 293, this Applicant is requesting that her discharge be upgraded as the discharge does not represent her true character. She has submitted 5 pages of documenting her Veteran Affairs compensation rating and duplicate copies of her service record for consideration. In Block 6 of the DD Form 293, this Applicant states that an upgrade is warranted as she suffers from a medical condition and for which she should not be punished.

The SR shows that this Applicant earned a Navy “E” Ribbon, a Good Conduct Medal, and a National Defense Service Medal. She earned an average overall rating of 3.7. This Applicant was given a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharged and separated for weight control failure authorized by MILPERSMAN 362050.

The American Legion’s express purpose in providing this statement, and any other submittals or opinions of record, is to aid the applicant in resolving any improprieties or inequities in the character and basis for discharge. Moreover, we rest assured that the Naval Discharge Review Board’s final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion as promulgated by title 10 U.S.C., section 1553, and set forth in 32 C.F.R., part 724; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1).

This case is now respectfully submitted to the Board for deliberation and disposition. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Department of Veterans Affairs Decision (5 pages) , dtd M ay 24, 2001
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Applicant’s document summary page
 27 pages of Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19930416 - 19930614       COG
          Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19930615              Date of Discharge: 19970416

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 3 10 02
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 35

Highest Rate: SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 . 7 ( 5 )     Behavior: 3 . 7 ( 5 )                 OTA: 3 . 7 4.0 evals

Performance: 3.0 (1)     Behavior: 1.0 (1)                 OTA : 2 . 3 5.0 evals
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Navy “E” Ribbon, Navy Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal .


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

(GENERAL) UNDER HONORABLE CO NDITIONS/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE , authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950224:  Medical Entry, C.P. B_, MD, LT, MC, USNR: Applicant diagnosed impaired glucose tolerance.

 960524:  Applicant advised of first failure to meet t he physical readiness standards (40% BF).

960606:  Applicant directed to participate in a command monitored Physical Fitness Program to assist in achieving the required standards.

 960614:  Applicant awarded Good Conduct Medal.
961203:  Applicant advised of second failure to meet the physical readiness standards (38% BF). Applicant enrolled in the command’s Level I remedial program.

970331:  Report of Medical Assessment, Healthcare Provider Comments: Glucose intolerance (probable early diabetes).
970407:  Applicant advised of third failure to meet the physical readiness standards (37% BF).
970408:  Memorandum from R_ G_, HMCS (FMF), Senior Medical Department Representative: Applicant failed three consecutive Command Physical Readiness Tests. Applicant has been on command’s Level I remedial program fo r 12 months without making any significant progress in achieving the Navy’s weight standards. Applicant has been evaluated by the dietician, CSS-11 Medical Officer, and by Internal Medicine. Recommend Applicant be processed for administration separation.
970408:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general by reason of convenience of the government – weight control failure.
970408:  Applicant advised of rights and elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

970410:  Commanding Officer, ARCO (ARDM 5), directed the Applicant’s discharge by reason of weight control failure. Commanding Officer’s comments: Seaman F_ (Applicant) is militarily unsuitable for retention due to her failure to achieve prescribed physical readiness standards. Seaman F_ has made no effort to meet the Navy’s weight standards, other than participation in mandatory physical readiness training. She is not motivated towards the Navy or a healthy life style, and should be separated from the Navy.

 970416:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reasons of weight control failure.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19970416 by reason of weight control failure (A and B) with a service characterization of 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 was proper but in equitable (C and D).

The Applicant contends that her discharge is inequitable because she was “borderline diabetic” and “had difficulty controlling [her] weight due to health condition of diabetes.”
The Applicant’s medical records show that the she was diagnosed with glucose intolerance (probable early diabetes). However, t here is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that this condition was solely responsible for her weight problem . The Applicant’s statements alone do not provide sufficient basis to grant relief.

Notwithstanding, under applicable regulations, separations based on a weight control failure should be honorable unless a general (under honorable conditions) or an entry-level separation is warranted. A general discharge may be warranted if the Applicant’s service contains records of nonjudicial punishments, disciplinary actions, or if other significant negative aspects existed, which outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s period of service. Additionally, a general discharge may be warranted if the Applicant’s performance evaluation averages are not sufficient to merit an honorable discharge. The Applicant’s record contains no evidence of NJP and her performance evaluations were sufficient to merit an honorable discharge. In light of this evidence, the Board unanimously concluded that relief is 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. The Applicant can provide documentation to support post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620260, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE.

B. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97 Article 3420440, HEALTH AND PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.

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

 D. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00215

    Original file (ND00-00215.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 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920610 Date of Discharge: 951114 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 05 05 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time) Inactive: None ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00940

    Original file (ND99-00940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960405: Commanding Officer, USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN, advised BUPERS that member was discharged on 8 April 1996 with an Honorable by reason of weight control failure as evidenced by failing three physical readiness tests on 10 November 1994, May 1995 and November 1995. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 960408 with a general (under honorable conditions) for weight control failure due to not meeting the prescribed physical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01201 (1)

    Original file (ND99-01201 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's Statement to the Board Copy of DD Form 214 VA' decision on Applicant's claim dtd Sep 1, 1999 Copy of applicant's medical record (154 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 891209 - 951206 HON 860603 - 891208 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850607 - 860602 COG Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01201

    Original file (ND99-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's Statement to the Board Copy of DD Form 214 VA' decision on Applicant's claim dtd Sep 1, 1999 Copy of applicant's medical record (154 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 891209 - 951206 HON 860603 - 891208 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850607 - 860602 COG Period of Service Under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01337

    Original file (BC-2004-01337.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Aug 03, the applicant requested a letter stating her diagnosis of insulin resistance and its effects on her weight. At the time the action was taken against her she was undergoing tests for insulin resistance, five years after she told medical personnel she suspected something was wrong because she could not lose weight. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 February...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00486

    Original file (ND01-00486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN Article 3620260, separation of enlisted personnel for weight control failure should be characterized as Honorable unless a General discharge is warranted. The applicant’s discharge shall be changed to Honorable. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls10.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00965

    Original file (ND00-00965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Overweight by 8 pounds/OK'd by bodyfat of 32%.950428: Weight: 162 pounds, body fat 32%.950510: Placement on Mandatory PT Program/counseling: Applicant formally evaluated as not meeting the Navy’s minimum physical fitness requirements and advised that to remain eligible for continued service she must participate in the Mandatory PT program regimen and that failure to cooperate in and complete the regimen may constitute grounds for separation processing. 960624: Applicant notified of intended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00805

    Original file (ND03-00805.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00805 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030402. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I was originally discharged for failure of the PRT - the Navy weight standards.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02678

    Original file (BC-2004-02678.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 Mar 03, she was placed on a deferment due to a medical condition; as a result, the Feb 03 weight was excused. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts the medical deferment expired in Jun 03 without a firm diagnosis being given. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01130

    Original file (ND02-01130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.Department of Veterans Affairs, to Applicant, dated Jul 23, 2002, providing the DD Form 293 to the Applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950221 - 950314 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950315 Date of Discharge: 980310 Length of...