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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00696

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050308.  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 did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050915.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discovered some impropriety and inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge and reason for discharge shall change to:  HONORABLE/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6214, Separation Code “JFF1.”

PART I - 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:

“My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated problem, my being overweight.  I received a General Discharge after more than 31/2 years of what I believe to be good and faithful service in the United States Marines including tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I know this appears to be a simple case of the charge that I disobeyed orders and did not lose weight, but I believe that if you will review all the records and especially the medical documents I have submitted, you would be willing to consider this application favorably.  I did not realize during the last few months of service, when I was being criticized for being overweight, that I was afflicted with both Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which I got in Iraq.  However, I but also have a genetic condition I obviously had all my life, Attention Deficit Disorder and learning disabilities, which were also playing a role in my inability to lose weight.  I was not being insubordinate, I just unable to understand the consequences of my action because of a combination of these problems.

I have attached to number eight the medical/mental documents and reports that support what I said in the first paragraph.  Please pay special attention to my psychiatrist’s (Dr. S_) February 17, 2005, report discussing the inner-relationship with ADD, Iraq-related PTSD, and my learning disability.  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.  He states that these conditions all combined “...clearly interfered with his (meaning me) ability to comprehend the seriousness of his (me) weight condition and interfered with his (me) inability to appropriately respond to this condition to maintain his position in the Armed Services.  His condition of being overweight is primarily related to service-connected PTSD.  It was not addressed nor treated in the Armed Services.  Clearly, ADD is an exacerbating condition of his PTSD and impaired his ability to comprehend the seriousness of his condition of being overweight while in the Armed Services.” Dr. S_ goes on to say what I am trying to explain which is that my “. . . overweight condition is a symptom of his (me) psychiatric problems and not a disregard for military directives.”

I was not on any medication while in the military and therefore, my handicap of Attention Deficit Disorder caused me to have attention drifts and an inability to focus.  The reason I was not on mediation was because I had never been prescribed any medication except once when I was a very little boy and I did not know I needed medication.  The report of Dr. S_ also notes that this ADD causes me to be distracted and impulsive in certain situations and I believe this was part of the result that I could not lose the weight.

I have been told that my learning disability qualifies as a “handicap” under the Americans With Disabilities Act and that allows for certain accommodations.  I have no way of knowing whether this applies to the military or not, and I am not here trying to get into legal arguments.  I am borrowing every cent I can find to get psychiatric treatment, and I am not interested in getting a lawyer.  I am just saying that I think my discharge is inequitable because it was based on a situation that I had no control over because of a combination of this Attention Deficit Disorder (which I admit was genetic) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (which came from Iraq).  I believe these two conditions deserve your special consideration in this case.

I realize this will probably be a long and rambling document, but please keep my disability in mind.  I dictated this to a public stenographer so that I could try to get everything typewritten so that it would be easier to read.  My spelling and grammar are bad but the stenographer had a spell check system in a computer of some kind, so I think if you will read everything, you will get my message.

I am not sure if there is any place I need to sign for you to talk to my private physicians, but I would certainly be willing to do that.  Since learning of the problems that my ADD caused me, along with the PTSD, I have been seeking care from private physicians and counselors as well as trying to get assistance from the VA.  I have borrowed money and now see a private psychiatrist (Dr. S_) and a private counselor (A_ B_).  However, I did want to call to your attention that I have made numerous attempts to get assistance from the VA, but I really have not received much help thus far because they are understaffed.  I have been told off the record that my type of discharge has also been looked at by the physicians who saw me and that might explain why it is difficult to get appointments.  Of course, this is another reason why I am trying to get an Honorable Discharge.

Now that I am on medication, prescribed by my personal psychiatrist, I see things a little better.  While I realize it was dumb and stupid of me not to be able to lose weight, I can understand now why I just didn’t get it even though told many times.

I wish someone in the military had tried to help me with these problems before I was discharged for being overweight because maybe then I would have been able to overcome these handicaps and disabilities and lose enough weight so that I could have finished my tour.

I wanted to be a good Marine and had hoped to re-enlist.  From the time I entered the Marines I wanted to make it my career.  I have an uncle who is a Colonel in the Air Force, R_ G_, and he is a career military officer presently stationed in Washington D.C.  My own father was in the United States Army in the 1960’s.  My father-in-law tried to enlist in the U.S.  Marines in the Iraq war but was turned down because of bad medical problems.  His father had been in the U.S. Army during WWII.  I believe in discipline and had hoped that the Marines would give me a career.  While in the Marines, I received decorations, had combat service, and was hit by enemy fire.  I was only five months from discharge when I was removed.

I believe I served with distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq and acted with merit when exposed to combat.  I am currently fighting to get my combat action ribbon and believe that was denied because the Marine Corps filed criminal charges or some kind of Court Martial charges against my commanding officer and therefore, he has not discharged his duty in awarding ribbons.  I have already submitted a DD 149 for the ribbon, on January 31, 2005, and I am enclosing that along with the attachment which explains my situation with the combat action ribbon (Exhibit 2A).  I explained my combat memories in response to a questionnaire for my compensation claim.  That is attached as Exhibit 2AA.

Because I did not receive an Honorable Discharge, I lost my educational benefits.  I had voluntarily placed in $1,200 under the Montgomery GI bill, which I have lost.  Since I have been discharged I have been a good citizen and have tried my best to do everything right.  I have not yet been able to secure a job, and part of that is because of post-traumatic stress disorder and the type of discharge.  I have gotten a loan so I can go to night school to learn welding.

I understand that I was given this type of discharge because of my weight problem.  I acknowledged that I was given more than enough time by the Marines to try to correct this problem.  However, while I always signed off on the acknowledgement that I needed to lose weight and to participate in the diet program, and the access to weight control programs, medical authorities, diet resources, and counselors for the weight problem, for reasons unknown to me at that time, I was unable to lose the weight.  I tried my hardest but could not do it.  Also, I have to admit that I just did not understand that I actually could be discharged from the Marines for this weight problem given the fact that I had been in combat and had what I thought was a good record.  I realize I was told that but I did not get it and could not get it through my thick skull the consequences of my failure to lose weight.  I now realize that I should have gotten help for my post-traumatic stress disorder as soon as I came back from Iraq and that I should have done more about getting help for my Attention Deficit Disorder, but I was told not to do by other Marines.  I was obviously in “denial”.  Because of the very conditions I had, I did not seek the kind of help I needed or even recognize that I needed help to the extent that I needed it.

The point I am trying to make is that while I should have been up front about my post-traumatic stress disorder (and Attention Deficit Disorder) as soon as I started having this weight problem, I just could not put this all together.  I could not understand why I was not able to lose weight even though I tried but worse than that, was just too dumb (I guess actually disabled) to understand the fact that I really was going to get booted out for not losing the weight.  As you can see from the medical documents, persons with my various conditions have problems with associating consequences with actions.  I realize now I should have advocated for myself as soon as I got back from Iraq and maybe even earlier, but I wanted to stay in the Marines so bad that I did not want to make a big deal out of my PTSD and Attention Deficit Disorder.  It is my belief now, which I think is verified by the medical records, that it is a combination of those two problems following my return from Iraq that got me into the situation where I was eating because of depression, which again I did not confess to, explains why I was not able to lose that weight.  My psychiatrist, Dr. S_, is working with me and his counseling and therapy is working better for me than any kind of diet and weight control type of program that I got in the military because it makes me understand why I am overweight.  Rather than addressing the physical issues, he has helped me try to get my mind straightened out so I am not so depressed and I can do what I know I have to do which is to lose weight.

I did try to appeal my General Discharge before it happened but really I should have had more help and probably treatment for my ADD and PTSD before even trying to do that.  Attached are my June 24, 2004, rebuttal (Exhibit 2B) as well as a letter of recommendation dated June 24, 2004 (Exhibit 2C).  My letter of recommendation was written by Sgt. M_ who pointed out that I was a hard worker and that I did a great job on Operation Iraq Freedom I.  Even my Sgt. Major noted in his discharge document that I had a strong work ethic and good work habits - paragraph 1-6 (Exhibit 2D).

I really did not do anything bad or wrong in the Marines other than just getting fat but I now truly believe that I not only got fat but could not take the fat off because of my depression and inability to understand what was going on around me.  Please understand I am not trying to blame anyone else for my own handicaps and disabilities, but it seems to me that since my time in Iraq caused the PTSD, that when that condition combined with the condition that I unfortunately have had all my life, Attention Deficit Disorder, got me into this overweight situation and inability to understand the problems, I should be given some consideration in light of my record.

I hate to point this out, but not only have I lost my GI bill and other benefits but the respect of my immediate family.  I am now being supported by my in-laws and my wife.  They are taking out the loans to get the medical attention for me and to get me enrolled in a welding school.  I now, after having had psychological and psychiatric counseling, realize this is part of my own making, but I do hope and pray that the Marine Corps will read everything I have presented and look at the medical situation and grant me my Honorable Discharge which I truly believe I deserve.  I now realize I have to accept the consequences of my actions but just wish to give you all of this information so that you understand that I was not being insubordinate or disobedient by gaining the weight and not being able to lose it.  I truly and honestly believe that if I had been treated after coming back from Iraq, and I now realize I should have requested that, I would have not gotten myself fat and then unable to lose the fat when told to do so.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293.)

“Thank you for your consideration, and the time you had to spend to read this long document.  I apologize, but I sometimes ramble when I try to explain things.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Applicant’s cover letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records, dtd January 31, 2005
DD Form 149, dtd January 24, 2005
Statement attached with DD Form 149
Statement in support of claim, dtd February 8, 2005
Statement attached with DD Form 293, undtd
Four pages from Applicant’s service record
Standard Form 180, dtd October 25, 2004
Standard Form 180, dtd November 15, 2004
Letter to Commanding Officer, dtd December 21, 2004
Psychiatric evaluation, dtd February 17, 2005
Psychiatric evaluation, dtd February 2, 2005
Doctor’s Curriculum Vitae (7 pages)
Evaluation, dtd December 20, 2004 (7 pages)
Statement from Applicant’s psychotherapist, dtd February 3, 2005
Cover letter to DD 293, dtd February 18, 2005
Cover letter returning request for information and documentation, dtd April 8, 2005
Request for information and documentation form, dtd April 8, 2005 (2)
Cover letter returning copy of request for information and documentation, dtd August 4, 2005
Letter from Applicant, dtd April 8, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	20001227 - 20010220		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010221		Date of Discharge:  20040925

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    03  07  05
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  LCpl				MOS:  1391

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (*N/A)				Conduct:  4.1 (*N/A)

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (Iraq), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2nd Award), National Defense Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Presidential Unit Citation, Good Conduct Medal

* Not Available

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:

001227:	Report of Medical Examination (SF 88): Applicant’s height and weight were 71-3/4 inches and 212 pounds.  [Note: Maximum weight for a height of 72 inches is 203.]

010221:	Record of Military Processing (DD Form 1966/1): Applicant’s height and weight were 72 inches and 221 pounds.

010221:	Pre-service waiver code: HBD [Medical disqualification weight waiver granted by Commanding Officer, Marine Corps District level.]

010824:	Applicant joined Marine Wing Support Squadron 172, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Okinawa, Japan for duty.

020211:	Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of March because of weight control.  Applicant not available for signature.

020501:	Applicant promoted to LCpl.

021001:	Applicant joined Marine Wing Support Squadron 271, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, Cherry Point, NC for duty.

030212:	To TAD Excess OEF.

030528:	From TAD Excess.

030814:	Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the month of Sept promotion period because the Applicant was not within Marine Corps Standards for weight/appearance.

031001:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (On 17 Sep 03, Applicant was screened and found not within the Marine Corps Body Composition Standards.).  Specific recommendation for corrective action: Ensure you are present for all scheduled Remedial Physical Conditioning Program sessions, and set a goal to lose 35 pounds or 12 percent body fat within a 6-moth BCP assignment period.  Sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

031001:	Basic Training Record: Applicant removed from second assignment to weight control program.

031017:	Applicant assigned to BCP on unit diary number 522.  [Note: Extracted from CO, MWSS-271 ltr 6100/S-3 dtd 31 Oct 03.]

031020:	During the semi-annual body composition evaluation, Applicant found to weigh 232 pounds and 32 percent body fat for a height of 72 inches.

031020:	Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Commanding Officer, MWSS 271, requested Medical Officer evaluation of Applicant.

031020:	Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Medical Officer determined Applicant body composition was not due to an underlying cause or associated disease.  Applicant was fit for participation in a BCP and Remedial Physical Conditioning Program (RPCP).

031031:	Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 271 assigned Applicant to a 6-month BCP as a second assignment.  Applicant directed to meet the following weight reduction goal of 4.83 pounds or a body fat reduction goal of 2.3 percent per month for an overall goal of 29 pounds and 14 percent body fat.

031031:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Applicant’s reassignment to the Marine Corps BCP.  Specifically, Applicant failed to maintain body composition standards as required by MCO P6100.12 for a second time.  Applicant’s actions are unsatisfactory and not in accordance with the high state of readiness required by the USMC.  Applicant advised that his subsequent assignment is for a 6-month period.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

031219:	Applicant assigned to six month limited duty board for knee pain.

040102:	To CAX.

040308:	Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation:  Commanding Officer requested medical reevaluation.  Applicant gained 13 pounds and 1 percent body fat, since being placed on the BCP on 031031.

040318:	From CAX.

040331:	Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Medical Officer determined that Applicant present body composition status is not due to an underlying cause or associated disease.  Participation in the BCP and Remedial Physical Conditioning Program should continue until Program assignment expires.  Medical Officer’s comments: “Patient is on limited duty for knee problems & should not run, jump, hop or play contact sports.  Pt may bike, swim and use elliptical machine in place of the above prohibited exercise.”

040408:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Body Composition Program.  Specifically, Applicant failed to adhere to diet and weight loss plan.  On 8 Mar 04 you were reevaluated and found to have gained 13 lbs., and 1 percent body fat since being placed on second assignment to the BCP on 31 Oct 03.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

040416:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Applicant’s inability to perform multiple activities inherent to a Marine.  On 19 Dec 2003, Applicant was assigned to first six-month limited duty board, which diagnosed Applicant as suffering from left knee pain.  Applicant notified of being processed for a limited duty board.  The board will expire on 19 June 04 and Applicant must be reevaluated no later than 19 April 04.), necessary corrective actions explained and sources of assistance provided.  Discharge warning issued.

040616:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Body Composition Program.  Specifically, Applicant failed to maintain height/weight standards as required by MCO P6100.12 for a second time.  On 16 Jun 04 Applicant weighed 240 lbs, which is 37 pounds overweight based upon a height of 72 inches.  Applicant’s body fat was calculated at 32%.  Applicant’s advised that actions are unsatisfactory and not in accordance with the high state of readiness required by the USMC.), necessary corrective actions explained.  Applicant advised of administrative separation for Body Composition failure.

040616:	Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Applicant notified that second 6-month assignment ended on 040431.  Applicant notified of failure to meet the Marine Corps’ body composition standards and will receive a 6105 counseling entry on SRB/OQR’s Page 11, and be processed for administrative separation per paragraph 6206 or 6215.

040623:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties while assigned to the Body Composition Program as a result of apathy or a lack of self-discipline.  The factual basis for this recommendation your recent unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Body Composition Program, as evident by your second assignment failure.

040623:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

040624:	Applicant submitted rebuttal statement to characterization of service in proposed separation.  Applicant’s comments: “I respectfully request that my service be characterized as Honorable.  I have been advised that while I retain most benefits upon receipt of a General characterization of service, I will lose all education assistance including my benefits under the GI bill.  I desire to go to college to become a Veterinarian and will still maintain the Marine Corps high standards in the civilian world.”

040630:	Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 271, via Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Group 27 forwarded to Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing results of administrative separation interview strongly recommending administrative separation for failure to make satisfactory progress while assigned to the Body Composition Program.  Commanding Officer’s comment: “On 31 Oct 03, LCpl H_ (Applicant) was awarded a second assignment to the Body Composition Program.  Despite continuous counseling, SNM has gained 17 pounds to date.  On 19 Dec 03, SNM was assigned to a six month Limited Duty Board for knee pain.”

040630:	Sergeant Major, Marine Wing Support Squadron 271 forwarded to Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing results of administrative separation interview recommending administrative separation for failure to maintain the Marine Corps weight standards.  Sergeant Major’s comments: “This Marine has failed to make progress while assigned to the program as a result of apathy towards the program and lack of self-discipline.  LCpl H_ (Applicant) has a strong work ethic but has failed on the whole Marine concept.  His chain of command state that he has good work habits and a strong knowledge of his MOS and they would work with him until his EAS.”

040716:	Applicant removed from BCP on unit diary number 1262. [Note: Extracted from CO, MWSS-271 ltr 6100/S-3 dtd 16 Jun 04.]

040824:	Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 271, via Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Group 27, recommended to Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, that the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) of service per paragraph 6206.5b of the reference (MCO P1900.16F MARCORSEPMAN). 

040826:	Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Group 27, forwarded to Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, concurring with the recommendation that the Applicant be separated with a general (under honorable characterization of service).  Group Commanding Officer’s comments: “LCpl H_ (Applicant) has not upheld the standards expected from every Marine.  This Marine has failed to adhere to a diet and weight loss plan, made it a habit of avoiding exercise and displays a non-professional attitude toward the Body Composition Program (BCP).  Since his initial assignment to the BCP, and while under continuous counseling, this Marine has gained 17 pounds, failed the partial Physical Fitness Test, and is unqualified on the rifle range.”

040915:	Commander, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, advised Commandant of the Marine Corps (MMSB) that the Applicant was directed discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties while assigned to the Body Composition Program.  Staff Judge Advocate review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040925 by reason of unsatisfactory performance (A) 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 impropriety and inequity (B and C) in the discharge.

The Applicant contends that his characterization of discharge was improper since his inability to return to his prescribed body composition was exacerbated by service connected post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit disorder.  When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect a Marine’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standard of conduct and discipline.  The Applicant’s entry-level physical of 20001227 and his enlistment documents of 20010221 do not show that the Applicant revealed to military officials that he had a pre-service condition (attention deficit disorder) for which he had taken medication prior to entry.  Indeed, the entry-level physical concluded that the Applicant was qualified for duty.  While on active duty, medical officers evaluated the Applicant on 20031031 and 20040331 for assignment to the Body Composition Program.  These evaluations determined that the Applicant’s body composition status was not due to an underlying cause or associated disease.  Clearly, the Applicant did not advise enlistment personnel, medical officials, or his chain of command of his purported conditions; and there is no evidence in the records to support the Applicant’s claim of a causal relationship between his present medical conditions and his inability to return to prescribed standards.  The post-service medical documentation submitted by the Applicant does not invalidate the medical evaluations received while of active duty.  Based on the known facts at the time of discharge, the Board found that the discharge was proper.  Relief is denied.

A related issue; the Applicant claims his weight problems were due to post-traumatic stress disorder in connection with his deployment from 20030212 to 20030528.  It is instructive to note that the Applicant entered service on a weight waiver.  The Record of Military Processing (DD Form 1966/1) dated 20010221 show that the Applicant was eighteen pounds over his prescribed weight.  Further, the Applicant was counseled on 20020211 not recommending promotion to Lance Corporal due to weight control.  The Board concluded that the Applicant struggled with his weight well prior to his deployment and that his failure to comply with weight standards preceded any diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant also contends that his characterization of discharge was inequitable because it was based on a situation that he had no control over.  While the Applicant feels that his inability to return to prescribed weight standards was out of his control, there is no evidence in his records to show that he was not responsible for his conduct and should not be held accountable. In fact, the Applicant signed numerous counseling entries concerning his deficiencies in performance and conduct; the Applicant initialed every entry on his weigh-in record, which charted his progress on the program from 20031020 to 20040810; and the Applicant was personally interviewed by the Commanding Officer and Sergeant Major of his unit concerning his body composition status.  Along the way, all assistance was made available to the Applicant.  The Board concluded that the Applicant’s performance and conduct were within his control, and that he should be held accountable.  No relief is granted on this basis.

The Applicant informs the Board that his present discharge characterization has affected his ability to get assistance from the Veterans Administration, secure a job, reenlist in the Marine Corps, and take advantage of the Montgomery GI Bill.  The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board, and the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of obtaining Veterans’ benefits or enhancing employment and educational opportunities.  These issues do not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Further, the Board has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into any of the Armed Forces.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant contends that his characterization of discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated problem.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions.  Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s second assignment to the Body Composition Program without successfully returning to prescribed standards, counseling not recommending promotion due to weight control issues, and failure to conform to weight standards as a result of apathy and lack of self-discipline served to inform a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, which the Applicant received.  On this basis, the Board found that the discharge was equitable, and so relief is denied.

Finally, the sole basis for the Applicant’s discharge was performance while assigned to the body composition program, which was an integral part of the discharge package.  After close scrutiny, the Board determined that the body composition program was improperly administered.  Errors in procedures were enough to constitute an impropriety.  Though the Board feels that a discharge was justified, procedural errors in the body composition program raised significant questions as to the Applicant’s ability to successful complete the program.  The Board could not conclude that the character of and reason for discharge would remain the same had the body composition program been properly administered.  Since the Applicant’s records indicate an honorable discharge is otherwise warranted, the Board unanimously voted to grant relief to the character of and reason for discharge.  

For the Applicant’s edification, the NDRB determined that the reason for the Applicant’s discharge shall change to Secretarial Authority.  In cases where no other reason for separation set forth in the Naval Military Personnel Manual is appropriate, but where separation of a member is considered to be in the best interest of the service, the Secretary of the Navy has the authority to direct the separation of any member prior to the expiration of their term of service.  Given the Board’s vote to grant relief, there is no other narrative reason for separation, which accurately describes the reason the Applicant was separated.  Therefore, Secretarial Authority is used.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

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 V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  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