DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
					2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

	
	TRG
	Docket No:11234-06
 	26 March 2008

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2008. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You reenlisted in the Navy on 5 February 1982 for six years. At that time, you had completed eight years of active service on two prior enlistments. During the period from 1 January 1983 to 30 November 1987, you were evaluated on four occasions. Each of the evaluations show that you always performed your duties in an excellent manner, further on 29 July 1984 you were awarded the Navy Achievement Medal.

Your lowest percentage of body fat reflected in the evaluations was 26.5% and the highest was 30%. The evaluation for the period 1 April 1984 to 31 May 1985 states that you had failed the physical fitness test because of a weight problem and that you had attended weight reduction school in December 1984. It is noted that you had lost 40 pounds and were continuing to lose weight. Consequently, you were recommended for advancement and retention in the Navy. On 16 September 1985 you were advanced to petty officer first class. However, the next two evaluations indicate that you had gained weight and were not recommended for advancement or retention in the Navy. You were honorably discharged at the expiration of your enlistment on 4 February 1998. At that time, you were assigned a restrictive RE-3T reenlistment code which means that you were recommended for reenlistment except for the disqualifying factor of your failure to meet the weight standards.
In your application, your counsel notes that you performed in an excellent manner in the Navy for 14 years. He contended that you would not have been denied reenlistment if you were currently in the Navy. He also pointed out that at the time of your discharge, there was no provision for separation pay or early retirement and it is unjust to deny a dedicated Sailor some compensation for his many years of good service. Therefore, he requested that the record be corrected to show reserve service after 4 February 1988 until you qualified for reserve retirement at age 60. Counsel contends that in the current environment you would have been given ample opportunity to conform to the new weight standards and that it is unjust to deny you further service.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your 14 years of excellent service. However, it is clear that you were on notice that you would be denied reenlistment if you did not meet the weight standards. Further, you were sent to a weight reduction class and were certainly aware of what was required to lose weight but after a period of weight loss you returned to your original overweight status. The Board also noted that you received the least restrictive reenlistment code possible in your situation and that you could have applied for reenlistment at any time after discharge if you had been able to meet the weight standards. Since you were treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and that a correction to the record to show additional service is not warranted.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director