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

 ex DC3, USN
Docket No. ND97-01346

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 970904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary discharge review, he did not list any representative on the DD-293.

Summary of Review

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 980928.  The NDRB determined that the discharge properly and equitably reflects the quality of service rendered.  The discharge shall remain:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)

1.  My undesirable discharge is inequitable because after nearly four years of service with 3.8 evals and a number of awards, I was discharge on one isolated incident.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:	None
	Inactive:	USNR (DEP)		890318 - 890727	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890728			Date of Discharge:  930703

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  	03  11  06
	Inactive:  	None

Age at Entry:  18				Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11				AFQT:  39

NEC:  DC 0000  				Highest Rate:  DC2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.76 (6)	Behavior:  3.73 (6)		OTA:  3.44

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MUC, SSDR, SASM, JMU, LOC

Nonjudicial Punishment(s):  1		Court(s)-Martial:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS1

890318:	Pre-service waiver given for reckless driving and two alcohol related offenses.  Granted by CO NAVCRUITDIST, Pittsburgh, PA.

890724:	A local waiver for three minor traffic offenses has been granted by CO, NAVCRUITDIST, Pittsburgh, PA.

890728:	Joined CRUITRACOM, NTC, San Diego, CA.

890731:	Applicant certified he had read and understood all of the information contained in the Navy "Drug Abuse Statement of Understanding".  Specifically, the consequences of illicit drug use, effects of drug and alcohol abuse on discipline and combat readiness, consequences of drug trafficking, physical and psychological effects of drugs and alcohol abuse, and the Navy’s urinalysis screening program.

891019:	Joined NTTC TREASURE ISLAND, SAN FRANCISCO, CA.

900206:	Joined USS FORRESTAL (AVT-59), Mayport, FL.

900215:	Applicant certified he had read and understood all of the information contained in the Navy "Drug Abuse Statement of Understanding".  Specifically, the consequences of illicit drug use, effects of drug and alcohol abuse on discipline and combat readiness, consequences of drug trafficking, physical and psychological effects of drugs and alcohol abuse, and the Navy’s urinalysis screening program.

900508:	Civilian Conviction:  Duval County Court, Jacksonville, FL for disorderly intoxication.
	Court action:  Found guilty, adjudication withheld by court, paid $120 court costs.

900619:	Retention Warning:  Applicant advised of deficiency in conduct evidenced by civil conviction in Duval County Court, Jacksonville, FL on 8 May 1990 for disorderly intoxication.  Corrective actions identified.  Sources of assistance included.  Advised:  further deficiencies may result in disciplinary action and administrative separation.  All deficiencies during current enlistment will be considered.  Subsequent violations of the UCMJ or conduct resulting in civilian conviction could result in separation under other than honorable conditions.  Receipt acknowledged.

921123:	Medical Evaluation for alcohol abuse/dependency:  A:  Alcohol abuse.  P:  Alcohol dependent.  Recommend NADSAP and CAAC.

930603:	NJP for violations of UCMJ, Article 107:  False official statement,
Article 128: Assault upon Bks watch, 
Article 134: Drunk and disorderly.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $563 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to DC3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930607:	Medical Evaluation:  No evidence of neurotic or psychotic disorder.  No evidence of physiologic addiction to alcohol.  There is medical contraindication to administrative discharge found at this time.  Applicant recommended for further service.

930611:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the  commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment of 3 June 1993 and your civilian conviction of 8 May 1990.

930611:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having chosen 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.  Applicant did not object to separation.  Receipt acknowledged.

930624:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction.  Commanding officer’s verbatim comments:  I strongly recommend that SNM be separated from the naval service under other than honorable conditions.

930702:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930703:	Declined treatment for Alcohol/Drug dependency.

930703:	Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ MISCONDUCT; authority Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600.   

RECORDER’S NOTES:

1  The source for all entries is the service record (includes medical/dental record) unless otherwise noted.

 PART IV - EXTRACT OF PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94),  Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT, states:

1.  A member may be separated for misconduct by reason of one or more of the following circumstances:

a.  Misconduct Due to Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  A series of at least three but not more than eight minor violations (e.g. specifications) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (none that could result in a punitive discharge - see Manual for Courts-Martial, Appendix 12, and not drug related) documented in the service record, within the current enlistment, which have been disciplined by not more than two punishments under the UCMJ.  The member must have violated counseling (Article 3610260.5) prior to initiating processing.  If separation of a member in entry level status is warranted solely by reason of minor violations of the UCMJ, and the member's misconduct does not meet the eligibility requirements for any other misconduct, the processing should be under Entry Level Performance and Conduct (Article 3630200).

b.  Misconduct Due to a Pattern of Misconduct

(1) A pattern of misconduct is defined as discreditable involvement with civil and military authorities.  The member must have violated counseling (Article 3610260.5) prior to initiating processing.  Such a pattern may include both minor and serious infractions as evidenced by:

(a) Three or more civilian convictions within the current enlistment.

(b) Three or more punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment.

(c) Any combination of three civilian convictions and punishment(s) under the UCMJ within the current enlistment.

(d) Three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than 3 days duration each within the current enlistment.

(e) Nine or more violations (e.g., specifications) of the UCMJ within the current enlistment which have been disciplined by punishment under the UCMJ.

(2) A pattern of misconduct is defined as well by discreditable management of one's personal and financial affairs as evidenced by:

(a) A set pattern of failure to pay just debts.  (Include financial statement prepared as specified in Article 6210140.14 when case is forwarded.)

(b) A set pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to dependents or failure to follow orders, decrees, or judgments of a civil court concerning the support of dependents.  Include copies of court order(s), judgments, etc.

c.  Misconduct Due to Commission of a Serious Offense (processing not mandatory).  An individual may be processed for administrative separation when a punitive discharge would be authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial for the same or a closely related offense.  Note that:

(1) If the offense is evidenced by a general or special court-martial conviction--the findings of which have been approved by the Convening Authority--the findings of the court-martial as they relate to the administrative discharge process (basis and reason) are binding on the Administrative Board (see Article 3610260.7a).

(2) If the offense is evidenced solely by a court-martial conviction and the court-martial Convening Authority has remitted or suspended a punitive discharge, forward the case to the same Convening Authority for endorsement according to Article 3610260.7b.

d.  Misconduct Due to Commission of a Serious Offense (processing mandatory)

(1) An individual must be processed for administrative separation when the commanding officer believes by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual committed extremely serious misconduct that either resulted in, or had the potential to result in death, or serious bodily injury, such as but not limited to:  homicide, arson, armed robbery, etc.

(2) Sexual Perversion.  An individual must be processed for administrative separation when an incident involves sexual behavior that deviates from socially acceptable standards of morality and decency.  Such behavior may violate military or civilian law and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) lewd and lascivious acts;

(b) sodomy (forcible heterosexual or child molestation); consensual and forcible homosexual acts with of-age individual shall be processed under Article 3630400);

(c) indecent assault;

(d) indecent acts; and

(e) indecent exposure.

Note that if circumstances involve an incestuous relationship, commanding officers shall notify Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS) (Pers-661/83) immediately upon discovery.  Per OPNAVINST 1752.2, Pers-661 will review the case for referral to the Family Advocacy Program; if member is not accepted, Pers-83 will direct processing for separation.  Note that acceptance into family advocacy programs run by Family Service Centers at local commands does not constitute formal acceptance into the Navy's Family Advocacy Program.

(3) Sexual Harassment.  An individual must be processed for administrative separation following punitive actions if appropriate, on the first substantiated incident of sexual harassment involving any of the following circumstances:

(a) threats or attempts to influence another's career or job for sexual favors;

(b) rewards in exchange for sexual favors; or

(c) physical contact of a sexual nature which, if charged as a violation of the UCMJ, could result in a punitive discharge.

Note that an incident is substantiated if there has been a nonjudicial punishment or court-martial conviction, or the commanding officer is convinced based on the preponderance of the evidence that sexual harassment has occurred.  All forms of sexual harassment not mentioned above must still be handled administratively (i.e.; NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks (Page 13) counseling, letters of instruction, nonpunitive letters, remarks in evaluations, etc.).

e.  Misconduct Due to Civilian Conviction (processing not mandatory).  An individual may be processed for administrative separation based on a conviction by civilian authorities, or action taken which is equivalent to a finding of guilty, provided the offense, or closely related offense could warrant a punitive discharge (see Manual for Courts-Martial, Appendix 12), or the sentence includes confinement of 6 months or more without regard to suspension or probation.

f.  Misconduct Due to Civilian Conviction (processing mandatory).  An individual must be processed for administrative separation based on a conviction by civilian authorities, or action taken which is equivalent to a finding of guilty, which involved an offense that either resulted in, or had the potential to result in death, or serious bodily injury, such as but not limited to:  homicide, arson, armed robbery, etc.

2.  Under this article, counseling and warning as outlined in Article 3610260.5 is only required for members being processed for misconduct due to pattern of misconduct or misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.  The latest offense and counseling and warning must have occurred while assigned to the parent command.  Separation activities defined in Article 3640476, and other commands to which temporary duty is authorized by CHNAVPERS, are exempt from this requirement.

3.  Characterization.  Normally Other Than Honorable, but characterization as General may be assigned when warranted.  For respondents who have completed entry level status, characterization of service as Honorable is not authorized unless the respondent's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  When characterization of service as Other Than Honorable is not warranted for a member in entry level status, the separation shall be described as Entry Level Separation.

4.  Reduction in Rate.  When a servicemember serving in pay grade E-4 or above is administratively separated with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service, the member shall be administratively reduced to pay grade E-3, such reduction to become effective upon separation.

5.  Procedures

a.  The Administrative Board procedure (Article 3640200) shall be used in processing all reasons, except when processing for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, in which case Notification procedure (Article 3640200) may be used.

b.  Separation processing for misconduct due to civil conviction may be initiated whether or not a member has filed an appeal of a civilian conviction or has stated an intention to do so.  Execution of an approved separation should be withheld pending outcome of the appeal or until the time for appeal has passed.  The member may be separated prior to final action on appeal upon his or her request or upon direction of the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV).

c.  Members confined in a foreign penal institution may be processed for separation, but may not be discharged or separated from the service until the completion of imprisonment and return to the United States.  In unusual cases, (i.e., life sentence without possibility of parole) such discharges or separations may be authorized by SECNAV by Reason of Best Interest of the Service (see Article 3630900).  SECNAVINST 5820.4 refers.

d.  Members must be dual or multiple processed where appropriate, (i.e., members processed for misconduct due to civil conviction must also be processed (dual) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense if the offense for which convicted could warrant a punitive discharge).  Exceptions:  Misconduct involving only preservice, prior service, or current service homosexuality shall be processed only under Article 3530400.  Misconduct involving only drug abuse (civil or military) shall be processed only under Article 3630620.

e.  Members may be processed for separation by reason of misconduct for offenses which occur preservice or in a prior enlistment, provided the misconduct was unknown to the Navy at the time of enlistment or reenlistment and processing for fraudulent enlistment is inappropriate.  Under these unusual circumstances, Notification procedures (see Article 3640200) shall be used as the least favorable characterization of service possible for offenses which occur prior to entry into active duty or in prior enlistment is General.

f.  Officers exercising special court-martial convening authority are delegated authority (see Article 3610220) to separate members only if an Administrative Board recommends separation with a General or Honorable discharge, the member does not object to the discharge, and that characterization is consistent with guidance in Article 3610300.  In cases where member objects to separation, CHNAVPERS (Pers-83) is Separation Authority.  Regardless of an Administrative Board's recommendation, CHNAVPERS is Separation Authority for members being separated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by sexual perversion or sexual harassment.

g.  Forward processed case by letter of transmittal to Pers-83.  Ensure member's full name, rate, and SSN have been indicated on each page of the case.  In those cases where the commanding officer effects the separation, indicate date and characterization of separation awarded.  Refer to Article 3640200.11 for message submission option in those cases where member waives an Administrative Board, the commanding officer does not have authority to effect separation, or member objects to separation.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 107, false official statement, and/or Article 128, assault upon, in execution of office, person serving as sentinel or  lookout; if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, Standards for Discharge Review, states, in part:

“9.2 Propriety of the Discharge

a.  A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that: 

(1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or

(2) A change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.

b.  When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court), the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.

c.  The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis.  Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.

d.  The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971:  the NDRB shall either recharacterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:

(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;

(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.”

D.  SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Manual for Discharge Review 1984, Chapter 9, Standards for Discharge Review, paragraph 9.3, Equity of the Discharge, states, in part, that a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless in the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this paragraph and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.  Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:

1.  Quality of service, as evidenced by factors such as:

a.  service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct and proficiency ratings (numerical and narrative);

b.  awards and decorations;

c.  letters of commendation or reprimand;

d.  combat service;

e.  wounds received in action;

f.  records of promotions and demotions;

g.  level of responsibility at which the applicant served;

h.  other acts of merit that may not have resulted in formal recognitions through an award or commendation;

i.  length of service during the service period which is the subject of the discharge review;

j.  prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;

k.  convictions by court-martial;

l.  records of nonjudicial punishment;

m.  convictions by civil authorities while a member of the service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in the service records;

n.  records of periods of unauthorized absence;

o.  records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.

2.  Capability to serve, as evidenced by factors such as:

a.  Total capabilities.  This includes an evaluation of matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores.  Consideration may also be given as to whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.

b.  Family and personal problems.  This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.

c.  Arbitrary or capricious actions.  This includes actions by individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge the individual or unduly influence the characterization of service.

d.  Discrimination.  This includes unauthorized acts as documented by records or other evidence.

PART V - RATIONALE FOR DECISION

Discussion

	After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents1, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the characterization of the applicant’s service is equitable.  The discharge shall remain:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN,  Article 3630600.

The applicant was discharged on 930703 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A, Part IV).  The record clearly documents the basis for the separation.  The applicant's service was marred by serious disciplinary infractions.  On 900508, the applicant received a civilian conviction for disorderly intoxication.  On 900619, he received a retention warning for his civilian misconduct.  On 930603, the applicant was awarded NJP for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 107, false official statement, Article 128, assault upon barracks watch, and Article 134, drunk and disorderly.  The UCMJ violations of Articles 107 and/or 128 could have resulted in a bad conduct discharge and constituted misconduct serious enough to warrant separation (B, Part IV).  After his NJP, the commanding officer (CO) initiated administrative discharge separation proceedings in accordance with Navy policy.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to exercise all of the rights of law, custom, and regulation to which he was entitled.  He was advised of his right to consult with counsel prior to electing to request or waive his rights.  He chose not to consult with counsel, then elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of documents forwarded to support the separation.  The CO recommended separation with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  BUPERS directed the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of  misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  The discharge and characterization were consistent with Navy policy and standards of discipline, and were proper and equitable (C and D, Part IV).

In the applicant’s issue, he states “My undesirable discharge is inequitable because after nearly four years of service with 3.8 evals and a number of awards, I was discharge[d] on one isolated incident.”  This claim, in the Board's opinion, serves to validate the misconduct.  This contention implies a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military, in light of good service, is allotted a single misdeed without penalty or stigma, regardless of how notorious the offense.  This is a misconception probably grounded on the practice of civil courts to afford leniency to first time offenders.  There is no precedent, within the Board's review, for minimizing the "isolated incident".  As with each case before us, the seriousness of a single act must be judged on its own merit.  It can neither be excused nor extenuated solely on its isolation.  No relief is warranted.

Although not raised as an issue, the following information is provided for the applicant’s edification.  In addition to the service record, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D, Part IV).  While it is true the applicant cannot go back and undo his prior mistakes, he does have the opportunity to contribute in a positive way to society and warrant clemency.  Those contributions that would be looked upon favorably by this, or any other Board, include educational pursuits, employment track record, being a contributing member of society and making a positive impact in the community through volunteer work.  The applicant must prove that his post-service conduct has been above reproach and he is making a valid attempt at making amends for the misconduct he committed during the period of service under review.  

The 15 year window during which applicants may appeal their discharges was established to allow time for establishing oneself in the community and for making these substantial, documented life style changes and community contributions.  The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided that an application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

Recorder’s NoteS:

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

Copy of applicant’s DD Form 214.
Character reference from J_ R_.
Character reference from S_ M_.
Statement from applicant.
Character reference from N_ S_ dated 6 October 1997.
Police report from Pinellas County, Florida dated October 1, 1997 stating no arrest or criminal record.
Copy of Certificate of Appreciation.
Copy of certificate for completed course of instruction in Damage Controlman “A” School dated 12 January 1990.
Copy of Letter of Commendation.
Copy of Letter of Commendation.
Copy of authority to assume the title and wear the uniform of a Second Class Petty Officer dated 16 December 1992.
Copy of Diploma for Basic Jewelry Repair dated 18 February 1994.
Examination Profile Information dated 13 September 1991.
Subject-Matter Section Identification for All DC3.
Special Request Authorization to be advanced to E-3 dated 8 February 1991.
Authority to assume the title and wear the uniform of a Third Class Petty Officer dated June 13, 1992.
Recommendation for Advancement Rate or Change of Rating (Worksheet) dated 4 September 1992.
Examination Profile Information dated 13 September 1992.
Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results.
Application for Uniformed Services Identification Card DEERS Enrollment dated December 16, 1992 and June 11, 1993.
Personnel Security Questionnaire dated March 18, 1989.
MEPS Reporting System – ENTNAC Status Report dated April 16, 1989.
S/R Routing Sheet.
Veterans Educational Assistance Act (New GI Bill) dated August 2, 1989.
Clothing Issue/Size Form dated August 23, 1989.
 LES Worksheet for Separation.
Leave and Earning Statement prepared 23 June 1993.
Travel Certificate dated July 8, 1993.
Detaching (Departing) Endorsement to Orders dated July 28, 1989.
Nine pages from applicant’s service record.
Character reference from Officer W_ T_ B_.

PART VI - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

Decision

The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN,  Article 3630600.

	The Board noted administrative errors on the original DD-214.  Block 24 should read:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, Block 25 should read:  MPM 3630600/BUPERS 021829Z JUL 93, Block 28 should read:  Misconduct.  The DD-214 should be reissued or corrected as appropriate.

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues which you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional documents 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809.

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
		Building 36 Washington Navy Yard
		901 M Street, SE
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023.