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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00642

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000421, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested 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 001102.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety but did discern inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was four to one that the character of the discharge shall change.  The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE /UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. (Applicant) was discharged for failure to control weight standards.  He suffers from hypothyroidism, a symptom of which is excess weight due to low thyroid activity causing decreased metabolism in the body.  Reference Document 1 from his civilian physician, Doctor P_ J_, who diagnosed and treated (applicant) for this condition.  Medication has helped him to lower his weight in civilian life.  This was not discovered by military physicians.  Had this illness been diagnosed while he was in the Marine Corps, weight would not have been a problem.  This problem was not (applicant's).  It was the Marine Corp's lack of proper diagnose.

2.  (Applicant) was a productive and proficient Marine.  His proficiency and conduct scores bear this out.  He received a letter of appreciation for his efforts with rocket launcher loading while on the night shift.  He always exceeded the normal quota of rocket launchers.

3.  Because of his weight, he was assigned a rigorous physical training regimen, along with his regular duties and work.  From 6/96 through 12/96 he made every PT session except three in 11/96, when he was working the night shift and was sick.  He made the other sessions and did all he could to lose the weight.  Again, undiagnosed hypothyroidism was the problem.

4.  (Applicant) is a good, dedicated Marine.  Please do not let the military's failure to diagnose his thyroid condition penalize him in civilian life.  Please grant him the Honorable Discharge he deserves.  Thank you.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Letter from applicant's doctor dated October 7, 1999
Copy of DD Form 214
Twenty-four pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		950208 - 950214	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950215		Date of Discharge:  970403

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  80

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (6)			Conduct:  4.4 (6)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, Letter of Appreciation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960221:	Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, lack of proper judgment, advise of assistance available and corrective actions.   Discharge warning issued.

960610	Medical Eval, (Branch Medical Clinic, NAS Miramar):  Applicant in for weight control eval - maximum WT - 186 lbs, applicant weighs 231 lbs. No medical problem - fit for remedial physical fitness training.

960610:	Applicant assigned to the weight control program.

961128:	Acknowledged his eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the Oct/Nov/Dec promotion quarter due to being assigned to the Weight Control Program.

961209:	Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, disobeying your work center supervisor by failing to report back after the safety stand down conducted on 961127 and unauthorized absence from 3 remedial PT sessions on 961122, 961126, and 961127, advise of assistance available and corrective actions.   Discharge warning issued.

961230	Medical Eval, (Branch Medical Clinic, NAS Miramar):  Applicant in for weight control eval - maximum WT - 186 lbs, applicant weighs 225 lbs. No medical problem - fit for remedial physical fitness training.

961230	Counseled concerning deficiency, specifically, failure to make progress toward meeting height/weight standards per MCO 6100.10C, advise of assistance available and corrective actions.  Discharge warning issued.

970203:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties.  The basis for discharge is [unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the weight control program, applicant does not qualify for separation based upon weight control failure, because he did not make reasonable effort to conform to Marine Corps height/weight standards by adhering to the regimen prescribed by an credentialed health care provider (ACHCP).]

970203:	Applicant advised of his 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.

970213:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

970318:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing] advised the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the applicant's discharge was directed with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason unsatisfactory performance.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970403 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to unsatisfactory performance of duties. (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 inequitable (C and D).

In response to applicant’s issue 1, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief.  When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant's performance and ability to conform to military standards.  The Board does consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant's post-service diagnosis of hypothyroidism and hypertension to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from his unsatisfactory performance.  Also, in addressing applicant’s issues 2-4, the Board determined that the applicant’s service record and performance evaluation averages warrant equitable relief.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to fully honorable.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 to Present, states that a Marine may be separated if the Marine is unqualified for further service by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEWgh.  

C  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 “afls14.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 writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023