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

ex-ET2, USN  
Docket No. ND04-00284

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031203.  The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040818.  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety, but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change.  The discharge shall change to:  HONORABLE/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My discharge was inequitable for the following reasons.  First, my service to the United States Navy warrants an honorable discharge.  Not only did I successfully qualify and stand some of the most technically demanding watches in the Naval Nuclear Program, namely Shutdown Reactor Operator, I did so with no safety issues or concerns.  I was also picked to be a staff instructor at my Nuclear Prototype in Ballston Spa, NY where I trained new Petty Officers how to stand watch, I did not have issues with tardiness, the quality of my watch standing, or training abilities.
For most of my Naval career, I was able to stay within physical readiness standards, though it was close.  However, when the standards were revised towards the end of my service, I was no longer able to meet them.  Had the standards not been tightened up, I am confident that I would have been able to continue to meet them.
The circumstances regarding the timing of my discharge had a direct bearing on my final evaluation.  When I was informed that I would be discharged for PRT failure, I started attending job fairs to ensure that I could support my wife and myself when I got out.  I inquired about the expected time frame regarding the processing of the paperwork and negotiated a start date with my future employer based on this estimate.  When my discharge didn’t come about within that timeframe, I was able to re-negotiate a later start date.  However, I found out that my division was sitting on my paperwork to make sure that they had me to stand watch during the holiday time so they could take vacation.  Since I had already delayed my start date once, and I couldn’t afford to risk losing this job, I wrote a letter to my commanding officer explaining the situation and asked that it be rectified.  While this necessary action did get my paperwork going, the leaders in my division began harassing me.  I believe that the determination of my character of service and my low evaluation in the teamwork category are a direct result of this action.
Additionally, the occurrences that prompted the statement “frequently does not attend assigned PRT remedial” on my final evaluation happened well after I was told of my upcoming discharge.  I met the requirements for remedial PRT before I was informed of my discharge, as the punishment for missing was harsh.  After I was informed of my impending discharge, my priorities centered on getting a job and preparing my household for a cross-country move.  Even with this action, I only had 5 days to drive from Norfolk, VA to Chandler, AZ.
It is my hope that the review board will grant my request for an Honorable discharge for two reasons.  Having paid into the Montgomery GI Bill program, I wish to improve myself by using it to obtain my bachelor’s degree. More importantly, I have recently obtained my Private Pilot’s License and wish to join the Civil Air Patrol to take part in search and rescue operations in my area.  It would be a shame not to be able to help my community solely due to my weight control problem.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Evaluation report and counseling record, dated January 22, 1997

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	900928 - 901226	COG
	Active:   USN			901227 - 921228	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  921229		Date of Discharge:  970122

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12 1/2		AFQT:  99

Highest Rate:  ET2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.73 (3)	Behavior:  3.53 (3)		OTA:  3.67
Performance:  2.50 (2)	Behavior:  1.50 (2)		OTA:  2.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, AFEM, AFSM, NATO

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

921224:	Medical Record: Applicant’s Body fat measures 22%.

930204:	Medical Record: Weight: 225 pounds.  Overweight counseling.

930301:	Medical Record: Weight: 222 pounds.  Light duty for 14 days.

930413:	Medical Record: No PRT spring cycle.

930414:	Medical Record: Weight: 225 pounds.  Still on light duty.  Will need a waiver on PRT.

930512:	Medical Record: Weight 218 pounds.

930630:	Medical Record: Weight: 223 pounds.

950109:	Medical Record: Weight: 242 pounds.  Overweight, missed 1 PRT cycle.  Refer to nutritionist VA.

951204:	Medical Record: Applicant exceeds body fat standards at 26%.  Applicant not cleared to participate in remedial PRT program.  Applicant may participate in push-ups and sit-ups portion of remedial PRT program.  Applicant is not cleared to participate in next PRT.

951204:	Counseling: Applicant advised that he failed to meet the physical readiness standards due to being overfat (body fat in excess of 22%) and placed on the command’s sponsored physical conditioning program.  Advised if overfat for three consecutive Physical Readiness Test cyles of administrative action.

951207:	Applicant directed to attend regularly scheduled remedial physical conditioning training.

960927:	Counseling:  Applicant advised that he failed to meet the physical readiness standards due to failing to take the Physical Readiness Test and placed on command’s sponsored physical conditioning program.  Advised of administrative action.

960927:	Applicant directed to attend regularly scheduled remedial physical conditioning training.

961218:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of weight control failure as evidenced by failure to achieve prescribed physical readiness standards.

961218:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

970106:	Medical Officer evaluation:  Applicant found not to be dependent on alcohol.  Applicant not recommended for further service.

970106:	Medical Examination: Weight: 250 pounds.

970110:	Discipline Officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of weight control failure due to not meeting the prescribed physical readiness standards.

970307:	Commanding Officer approved discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of weight control failure due to not meeting the prescribed physical readiness standards.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970122 with a general (under honorable conditions) for weight control failure, failed minimum prescribed physical readiness (PRT) standards (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 not equitable (D and E).

Issue 1:  The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.”  A review of Applicant’s records indicated an honorable discharge was warranted.  Applicant’s performance and behavior marks were above the standard required for an honorable discharge and there was no adverse information that would have warranted a less favorable characterization.  Therefore, relief to the character of service is granted.  

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 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  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.

E.  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