Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD05-01223

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01223

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050712.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  The Applicant designated a private representative as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060302.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Uncharacterized by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a disability.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and from an attached document sent to the Board:

“The discharge awarded was contrary to the prescribed discharge as directed by reference (b), and as directed by Judge Advocate General’s memo as found in enclosure (4).  Furthermore, the required physical examination was overlooked per the same memo, enclosure (4).  The entire separation procedure did not meet the litmus test of reference (b) and enclosure (4).

1.  It is respectfully requested that my Reenlistment Code currently RE-4 he changed to RE-1.
2.  It is requested that my separation code be changed from JEVI to JHF1 or to the unrestricted corresponding form as directed for RE-I
3.  It is requested that my narrative reason for separation be changed to entry level in accordance with reference (a).
4.  It is requested that my discharge characterization be changed to uncharacterized.
5.  Enclosures (1) through (13) are submitted in support of my request as is the following statement:

Members of the Board: The following issues are reasons that I believe my discharge should be upgraded to honorable and my reenlistment code/separation designator should be upgraded to RE-I with corresponding unrestricted separation designator as established by reference (a).

Firstly, I have discovered after reviewing my files, that under current standards I should not have received the type, characterization of separation and reenlistment code that was assigned through oversight of The JAG recommendations as directed by reference (a) and approved by Commanding General Training Command (C47)

Secondly, my discharge was improper because the parent command did not follow the discharge regulations as indicated in enclosure (4), JAG memo of 11 March 2003 1910B0523.

Thirdly, my ability to serve was hindered through misperception and distrust in my recent wed wife as alleged by letters I received from different people at home and exacerbated due to the lack of an NCO that I could seek assistance and guidance from while awaiting training.

Fourthly, my average conduct and proficiency marks were excellent and my record of promotions, February 1, 2003, were conducted even while the discharge process was taking place certifying my ability to serve and carry out the duties of the office to which I was promoted.

The overall alleged impairment to serve was due to my youth and immaturity combined with lack of NCO daily supervision and a barrage of unfilled time on hand.  Idleness and boredom were prevalent.  We did not have a structured plan of the day nor training schedule while in MOVOC-14 (holding tank), awaiting pick up by our training platoon and companies.  I was easy prey for the barracks “sea-lawyers” awaiting discharge for various and sundry reasons.  Today this type and character of substandard person would not breech the surface of my intellect and maturity.

In closing, the presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable, does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting.

I pray that you grant a favorable decision to my request, and God bless America and the United States Marine Corps.

Respectfully Submitted,
[signed]
C_ J. C_(Applicant)
(social security number deleted), Former PFC USMC”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative ( private representative):

“1.  Enclosures (1) through (15) are hereby submitted for your perusal and favorable consideration for change and upgrade in the characterization and reason for discharge, reentry code with corresponding separation code as supporting and justifying documents, in representation of this request.
2.  The information contained in the following statement is provided after personally researching and investigating this case for the last year and six months:

“Upon receiving the official military records and verifying the legal JAG position, it became extremely clear that the discharge awarded was contrary to the prescribed discharge as was advised by end (4) JAG memo to C.G. Training Command (C47)).

Furthermore in the interest of expediting the discharge process the need for a physical examination was overlooked as per the same memo, (end (4) JAG memo of 11 Mar2003, 1900/B0523).

Pvt.  C_(Applicant) entered the United States Marine Corps and was an excellent recruit during all phases of training while at MCRD Parris Island.  He continued to excel while at Marine Combat Training Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune N.C.  As is evidenced by his 4.0/4.0 proficiency and conduct marks.  He displayed none of the symptoms indicated by the mental counsel throughout his short tenure in the Marine Corps.  After speaking with his medical doctor, clinical psychologist, employer, college instructors, spiritual leaders, and intensive interviewing of his spouse I believe that the following would be an accurate statement of events:

Upon being assigned to the MOVOC-14 at Ft.  Leonard Wood awaiting to be picked up for training, there was no structured training regimen.  The Marines awaiting instruction are placed in the barracks with those that are waiting for disciplinary separations and a generally non-performing specimen, where one tends to find the sea-lawyer crowd.  Along with the loneliness of separation from the new wife, nothing to do but ‘make busy’, the advice of the sea-lawyers begin to collect in Pvt. C_(Applicant)’s mind.  Coupled with teasing letters from ‘friends’ back home concerning his young and immature wife carousing while he was gone and bingo- you have the barracks sea lawyer formula for instant discharge; seek a section 8.

In the absence of a permanent supervisor/NCO/Section Head, the chain of command tends to over-look or not be aware of the detailed day-to-day happenings of its Marines.  This whole process happened in less than 90 days without observation, counseling, nor any recommended actions other than accepting his statement about mental problems; nor was there any corrective advisement issued on pg 11 by the chain of command recommending corrective medical treatment nor counseling to determine truth and validity of an alleged problem.  There was no past history and should there have been counseling sessions by the section NCOIC/OIC and by trained medical personnel, this would have been identified quickly and corrected effectively.  The entire effort was to pursue discharge rather than teach him how to cope and be responsible to himself and to be an asset to his Marine Corps Team.

Any real problems would have been identified during basic training at MCRD Parris Island, should there have been any.

In a training environment where there are 5000 plus troops in various degrees of instruction, checking in- checking out, the seemingly non-producer becomes of little importance.

The easiest avenue rather than the correct avenue to develop a productive Marine, is chosen with little regard for time, money, training already expended.  Improving a rough jewel is cheaper than procuring another jewel and still having to cut and polish.  He had made the cut- but there was no polisher.  All of the indicators for a leader to become aware of problems were present; i.e. low morale; request for transfers; drop out of P.T. training; sick call including malingering.

During my 30 years as a Marine and 28 as an NCO/SNCO, leadership was trained to cut losses and salvage all personnel possible.  There are no problems-only solutions unidentified.  This is one of those cases that could have been resolved and Private First Class C_(Applicant) would most likely with proper guidance and training be one of those Sergeants or Staff Sergeants that we depend upon to care for our small unit leadership today.

In the Marine Corps NCO Leadership manual a question is posed- “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8) Members of The Board, I submit to you that the “uncertain sound” has been heard and the name of it is Global Terrorism.  We need to equip our service personnel with the attributes to enable them to become successful as an asset rather than a deficit to a combat unit readying for deployment worldwide.

Dr. D_ S_ F_, biographer of Lee and Washington and master of war history used to say that leadership boils down to three fundamentals:
Know your stuff.
Be a man/woman.
Look out for your troops.

Dr. F_’s fundamentals are simple and inclusive.  I submit that we as leaders failed Private First Class C_ J. C_(Applicant) by not knowing and carrying out the fundamentals and going the distance to identify, isolate, and alleviate the problem producing a combat effective Marine.

Members of the Board, military law as you well know governs individual conduct and performance of duty in the Naval and Marine Corps Service.  It also provides means for enforcing the rules; the prime essential, however, is always to insure justice in every case.

Military law has two basic purposes.  It is designed to provide means to insure that the military organization can be made to function under any circumstances, and to protect the Marine Corps against those who do not desire to, or cannot discipline themselves.  More important, however, it is designed to protect individuals from unjust treatment; both officer and enlisted.

In this case, both purposes have been denied successful completion.  We lost a potentially outstanding part of the Marine Corps Team by denying PFC C_(Applicant) proper corrective medical, physical, moral, and psychological training and counseling, there by denying the Marine Corps of its finished product-a well rounded, well trained, mentally prepared, highly motivated, and combat effective and combat prepared Marine ready to serve in any clime geographically at any time.

Law is a regulation in accord with reason, issued by a lawful superior, for the common good- T_ A_, Summa Theologica.

In our maximums of leadership and command we find that “He who ruleth over men must be just- 2 Samuel 23.” I submit that we leaders in order to expedite, did not explore all avenues available to us to correct a mere misperception of a very impressionable Marine.  We choose to not use reason and calm judgment, but rather let an energetic, lonely, unsupervised Private seek his own form of inexperienced resolution to his misperceived problems.  Every person has a face- I am so sorry that we as leaders deprived the Marine Corps of knowing the face, heart, and military soul of Private First Class C_ J.  C_ (Applicant) because of our lack of diligence in handling this Marine’s problem and mismanaging his future.

Members of the board, it is time for us to “pardon others without expecting pardon for ourselves-Ausonius.” I submit that there was not ample time: (1) for proper clinical evaluation to be conducted.
(2) There was limited to no interaction by 1^st level/2^nd level nor 3^rd level leadership.
(3) There was not an in-depth investigation conducted to ascertain PFC C_(Applicant)’s motive(s).
(4) There were no administrative counseling sessions with NCO/SNCO, 1^st Sgt.  Nor Sgt.  Maj. Indicated any where in the records to resolve the issue.
(5) There was no administrative review board conducted.  A new Private does not know the ramifications of his/her actions and the effects that it will have on his/her life.  Their understanding would be minimal at best.  Should there have been leadership interaction I submit that the command would have identified the alleged problem (6) PFC C_(Applicant) was an excellent to outstanding Marine in proficiency and conduct; an expert marksman, a 1^st class P.T. Marine with a heart for the challenge that lay ahead.  After basic training and MCT completion, impossible was a word that wasn’t ever uttered by PFC C_(Applicant) as the SRB and Training Records show.  As a Private, you generally sign what you are told to sign, when you are told, and where you are told.
(7) PFC C_(Applicant) was promoted in mid-stride of all of this and never informed of his promotion.
(8) PFC C_(Applicant) was not counseled that he would receive any other discharge than honorable and that after a year that he would be able to reenlist and continue on in the Marine Corps by simply applying and reenlisting.  This was stated verbally by the Chaplain and the psychologist/counselor.
(9) PFC C_(Applicant) was sent home before his discharge documents were prepared and executed by himself and the Commander.
(10) After one year and upon applying at the local recruiting substation PFC C_(Applicant) was informed to request his records because he did not have his DD214 in his possession by GySgt.  A_ USMC.  That is when he found out about the quality of discharge.  And substandard RE Code

The chronological record bears witness of the haste afforded to this discharge proceeding:

Jan 20, 2003- Mental Evaluation
Jan 20, 2003- Admin Counseling
Jan 29, 2003- Admin Separation Counseling
Feb 01, 2003- Notice of Separation
Feb 06, 2003- Rights Acknowledgement
Feb 07, 2003- Recommendation to discharge from USMC
Mar 20, 2003- Date of Separation from USMC

In exactly 60 days from time of notification of psychological evaluation, from Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri to Commanding General Training Command (C47) Quantico, Va. and back approved with directions for type, character, reason, and reentry code, which was not adhered to by the admin clerk.  A simple mistake? Maybe, but to a trusting, believing young Marine, PFC C_(Applicant) that thought he was going home to fix a problem and return a year later to his beloved Corps; it was a massive blunder requiring him to seek your wisdom, power, and authority to correct a tragic error on his life and the life of his family.

I therefore pray that this wise and knowledgeable august body of leaders correct a wrong and grant this petition for upgrade of discharge in all areas requested, thereby clearing the way for him to seek reenlistment in the USMC.  Approval for such request has verbally been conveyed to him by the Marine Corps Recruiting Service should he be successful in his request and be granted favorable response.

I apologize for the inaccuracy of any area of preparation and assure you that it is my desire to present honorably and truthfully.  The facts of this case for C_ J. C_(Applicant), Former PFC USMC, that will enable this august body to render a favorable decision.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
W_ J.  H_, Sgt. Maj, USMC (Ret)”

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

Should the board be caused to find favorably in totality of the Applicant’s request, thereby eliminating the need for travel to Washington, D.C., it is requested that the appointed counsel/representative be notified as soon as possible thereby allowing for the timely conclusion of travel plans.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (5)
Letter of appointment to representative/request for personal appearance, undtd (2)
Character reference ltr from spouse, H_ C_, undtd (2 pages) (2)
Forty-six pages from Applicant’s service record (2)
Mental health evaluation and recommendation by B_ C. C_, Ph.D., Clinical 	Psychologist, dtd March 16, 2005 (2 pages) (2)
Physical/medical examination conducted by J_ B. W_, M.D., dtd April 21, 2005 (2)
Letter of recommendation from L_ L. M_, Captain USMC (Ret), undtd, not signed 	(2)
Letter of recommendation from Mr. N_ T_, Plant Operator/Coordinator, dtd April 	27, 2005 (2)
Letter of recommendation from Mr. T_ T_, dtd June 22, 2005 (2)
Applicant’s official academic transcript from Bishop State Community College, dtd 	May 11, 2005 (2)
Cover letter from Chief, Patient Administration Division, dtd September 15, 2004 (2)
Mental Health Records from U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Ft. Leonard 	Wood, Missouri (12 pages)/(10pages)
Cover letter from Department of Veterans Affairs, dtd September 2, 2004 (2)
Forty-one pages of Applicant’s medical records (2)
Standard Form 180, dtd July 19, 2005
Letter from applicant’s private representative with enclosures, dtd January 6, 2006
Letter from applicant’s private representative to Board for Correction of Naval 	Records, dtd November 3, 2005 (7 pages)
Letter to applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dtd July 18, 2005
Letter to applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dtd October 6, 2005
Memorandum from Headquarters United States Marine Corps, dtd September 29, 	2005
Applicant’s DD Form 215, dtd September 29, 2005
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Memorandum from Headquarters United States Marine Corps, dtd September 14, 2005
Six pages from applicant’s service record
Memorandum from Headquarters United States Marine Corps, dtd September 2, 	2005
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from the applicant, dtd November 3, 	2005
Applicant’s schedule at Bishop State Community College, August 2, 2005 (2 pages)
Copy of envelope
Official academic transcript (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	20020809 - 20020813	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020814		Date of Discharge:  20030320

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    00 07 07
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11(GED)			AFQT:  32

Highest Rank:  PFC				MOS:  9900/3500*

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0*				Conduct:  4.0*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  Marksman Badge, National Defense Medal

*Extracted from SJA memorandum.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

Unknown:	Pre-service waiver for dependents granted.

030120:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Medically diagnosed personality disorder, depression, suicidal attempts and gestures, physical violence towards others, and unreliability in stressful situations.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

030120:	Report of Mental Status Evaluation.  Applicant was evaluated pursuant to SECNAVINST 1850.4D and AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17.  Diagnosis:
	Axis I:  296.90 Mood disorder Not Otherwise Specified, 300.4 Dysthymic Disorder, 304.30 Canniabis Dependence in early remission.
	Axis II:  301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder.  The Marine manifests disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control, and behavior that impairs his abilities to perform military duties.  This condition does not amount to a disability.  There is no indication that this disorder has been aggravated by is his relatively short period of time in active duty.  Training with weapons is specifically not recommended.  If PVT C_ (Applicant) is retained in the military command may anticipate problems with: depression, anxiety, rapid mood swings, disruptive behavior, excessive use of leadership and training resources, and unreliability in stressful situations.  Individuals with this symptom complex have a lifetime risk of suicide completion of approximately 20%.
	Recommendation:  The recommendation is for administrative separation from the USMC in accordance with SECNAVINST 1850.4D and AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17.

030129:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Medically diagnosed personality disorder, depression, suicidal attempts and gestures, physical violence towards others, and unreliability in stressful situations.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being recommended for administrative separation because of your physical condition that is not a disability.

030131:	Medical evaluation by US Army Training Center, P_ B_, Maj, MC.
	AXIS I: Major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild to moderate without psychotic features; dysthymic disorder, per history; and marijuana dependent, per history, currently in early full remission.
	AXIS II: Antisocial personality disorder, per history.
	AXIS III: Allergy to penicillin.
	Plan: 1.  Recommendation for administrative separation was written and discussed with Maj C_ of the Marine Corps detachment.  He strongly supports this recommendation.
	2.  Have started the patient on a 1-month trial of olanzapine 5 mg p.o.q.d.
	3.  Have drawn baseline labs including LFTs, CBC, chemistry panel, urinalysis and urine drug screen.
	4.  Have advised the patient to avoid driving if this medication makes him overly sedated.
	5.  Have discussed with patient that should he wish to continue on this medication after he returns home, it is very important he follow-up with a civilian healthcare provider to follow liver function tests and to follow for potential of weight gain.
	6.  If the patient continues to manifest such symptoms in the future given the above history, would strongly consider adding Depakote or lithium to patient’s olanzapine, and would monitor closely for recurrence of marijuana or other substance abuse problems.

030201:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical condition that is not a disability with a General discharge.  Applicant was notified that the least favorable characterization of service that he could receive was General.  The factual basis for this recommendation was that an appropriately credentialed mental health care provider at the General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital has diagnosed the Applicant with a personality disorder.  This diagnosis has been determined a physical condition not a disability.  The Applicant is manifesting depression and rapid mood swings and disruptive behavior.  Also unreliability in stressful situations and behavior that impairs your ability to perform military duties.  There is no indication when this problem evolved or if the condition worsened by the Applicant’s short period of time on active duty.  If the Applicant is retained in the Marine Corps, this command will experience problems with your behavior, depression, recurring anxiety, significant liability, poor motivation, unreliability in stressful situations, and an excessive use of leadership and training resources.  The Commanding Officer is recommending to the Commanding General that the Applicant be discharged immediately.  

030206:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

030207:	Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Detachment Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri recommended Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical condition that is not a disability.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “The basis for this recommendation is accurately depicted in the enclosure.  Private C_(Applicant)’s actions and behavior are against the good order and discipline of the U. S. Marine Corps.  If retained, Private C_(Applicant) would prove problematic with his behavior, depression, recurring anxiety, rapid mood swings, disruptive behavior and unreliability in stressful situations and would be a significant liability to this command.  I recommend that Private C_(Applicant) be separated immediately with a General characterization of discharge.”

UNDATED:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  The SJA concurs with the Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Detachment, Fort Leonard Wood, that the Applicant be separated from the USMC.  The SJA recommends that the Applicant be separated with an uncharacterized entry level discharge. 

030311:	GCMCA, Commanding General, Training Command, Quantico, VA, directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized service entry level discharge for the convenience of the government due to a physical condition not a disability.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030320 by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a disability (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  

By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service.  Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service.  On 20030311, the Commanding General, Training Command, Quantico, VA, directed the Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Detachment, Fort Leonard Wood, to separate the Applicant with an uncharacterized entry level discharge.  On 20030320 the Applicant was discharged with a General characterization of service.  On 20050929 Headquarters United States Marine Corps, Personnel Management Support Branch (MMSB) issued a DD Form 215, canceling the Applicant’s DD Form 214 issued on 20030320.  A new DD Form 214 was issued for the Applicant with a characterization of service of UNCHARACTERIZED.  The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than 8 months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.  Relief denied.

The summary of service clearly documents that a condition not a disability was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  On 20030120 the Applicant was examined by a Medical Officer and diagnosed as has having a Mood Disorder, Dysthmic Disorder, Cannabis Dependence in early remission, and a Antisocial Personality Disorder.  The Medical Officer stated the Applicant’s behavior impaired his ability to perform military duties and that the condition did not amount to a disability.  The Medical Officer recommended that the Applicant be administratively separated.  On 20030131 the Applicant was examined by another Medical Officer and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and antisocial personality disorder.  The second Medical Officer also recommended that the Applicant be administratively separated.  According to MARCORSEPMAN Par 6203.2a(9), the narrative reason of physical condition not a disability includes “any additional physical condition which interferes with duty, as determined by the commanding officer and medical officer, that is not considered a physical disability.”  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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 any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 
01 September 2001 and Present), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT

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