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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00643

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020403, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030116.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My discharge type was improper because I was injured while on active duty, and was unable to effectively train, exercise, and maintain the Marine Corps weight standard.  My injuries were not properly diagnosed, treated or rehabilitated while on active duty.  I am presently service connected for these injuries that prevented me from being able to effectively train, exercise, and maintain the Marine Corp's weight standards.

2.  I am enrolled at East Carolina University as a full time student seeking a degree in Nursing.  I started in August 2001, I am requesting that the upgraded discharge date be recorded on the DD 215 as no later than Jul 31, 2001, so that I may receive back pay for educational benefits, under Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty Educational Assistance Program (Chapter 30), denied to me by this improper discharge type.  These monies will be used to promptly pay for federal Loans that I had to take due to the unexpected denial of education benefits under Montgomery GI Bill one month before classes began.

3.  Dear Sir or Madam:

This is an overview of my request.  My claim for educational benefits under the program has been denied because I do not meet the eligibility requirements of an "Honorable" discharge.  My contingency is I was discharged due to service-connected disabilities for injuries that caused obvious weight gain due to my reduced ability to effectively train and exercise.  Definitive medical attention wasn't given to my condition until after I was discharged from the Marine Corps by a Veteran's Hospital.  The Marine Corps was negligent in its diagnostic method(s) and lack of treatment or rehabilitation of my injuries incurred during active duty.

The diagnosis should not be corpulence as indicated by my discharge reason, "weight control failure".  The diagnoses are service connected foot pain, back strain, limited motion of arm, impaired hearing, and migraine headaches.  There are several non-service connected diagnosis such as obstructive sleep apnea, bulging lumbar discs, and sciatica which I am currently petitioning for review because they are all related to my active duty injury.

The expedited review and subsequent upgrade of my discharge type from General Under Honorable to "Honorable" would afford me the necessary benefit(s) which I would otherwise be entitled to as described by the Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty Educational Assistance Program (Chapter 30).  The monies would allow me to pursue my college career and still provide appropriate care for my infant son.  It would also help ensure our continued quality of life.

I truly believe that I am eligible for Education Benefits therefore I am sending this notice of appeal to have my claim for Educational Benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty Education Assistance Program (Chapter 30) reviewed and subsequently approved based on the information above.  I am currently actively enrolled at East Carolina University as a degree-seeking student with an intended Major in Nursing.  I appreciate your assistance in this expedited review and I look forward to hearing from you in regards to my request.  Sincerely,

4.  Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing you in reference to a serious problem that I have encountered 'in my pursuit to receive my Veteran's Education Benefits through the Montgomery G I Bill - Active Duty Educational Assistance Program (Chapter 30). 1 have been 'informed that my claim for education benefits under this program has been denied because I do not meet the eligibility requirement (s) pertaining to Chapter 30 benefits.

I am ineligible for GI Bill Education benefits due to my discharge type from the military.  I received a General Under Honorable discharge type due to "weight control failure".  See Attachment A.  While on active duty I suffered injuries.  See Attachment B. Due to chronic and severe pain I was unable to effectively P. T., consequently my metabolism decreased and my weight increased.  I was penalized for this weight gain, although I meet the Marine Corps alternate weight standard based on body fat percentage, and inability to effectively train and tagged with "failure to conform".  This also led to a forced forfeiture of rank.

The medical standards of practice for soft tissue and back injuries are carried out with diagnostic studies to evaluate the problem and then provide treatment and rehabilitation.  The Marine Corps was negligent in that the only thing that was done after repeated request for assistance was to send me to a Chiropractor.  See Attachment C. It was only after I was discharged early from the Marine Corps, within the first year, that I went to the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina where I was given an evaluation, including assessment with Neurology, MRI, EEG, and EMG studies and treated appropriately with medication and Physical Therapy See Attachment D. As a result, I am currently receiving disability from the Veteran's Department for injuries incurred during active duty service in the Marine Corps.

It is my contingency that my discharge type should be "HONORABLE" versus General Under HONORABLE due to the discharge being for a "Service-Connected Disability" or discharged for the convenience of the military.  In my experience it was and presumably still is common practice for the Marine Corps to discharge active duty military personnel under weight control failure for injuries incurred while on active duty that caused obvious weight gain due to the reduced ability to "effectively" train and exercise, thereby 'in their eyes, affecting the subject name marine's overall ability to be fit for duty.  In my case it was the injuries incurred while on active duty and lack of treatment or rehabilitation that directly caused my inability to effectively train and exercise and subsequently gain weight.  In my experience there is little or no concern for the rehabilitation of the subject name marine once said marine is placed into such a category as "weight control failure" or "failure to conform to Marine Corps standards".  Subject name marine usually ends up at the nearest Veterans Hospital being treated for those same injuries that they incurred while on active duty.  Obviously if a marine sustains life threatening wounds or injuries they are given appropriate medical care but if they have soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, or injuries that are not easily diagnosed they tend to be dismissed as refusing to train or failure to conform.

The Physical Therapy Department at the Durham, North Carolina VA Medical Center has worked with me extensively and has provided me with a T. E. N. S. Unit and back support garments.  See Attachment E. I continue to have chronic back pain as a result of my injuries.  I have been rated service connected for back strain, foot pain, limited motion of arm, impaired hearing, and migraine headaches.  I have been diagnosed with Obstructive Sleep Apnea 'in which weight gain is a classical symptom, it also continues as a chronic problem.  See Attachment F I am currently petitioning for review because all these symptoms are directly related to my active duty injury.

My family has suffered ever since my early discharge.  I have been denied jobs due to my discharge type, and have been unable to make a comfortable transition from active duty military to civilian life.  I joined the Marine Corps to serve my country.  I continue to have a great desire to make a contribution with my life to my community.  I applied and was accepted to East Carolina University for Fall 2000.  See Attachment G. I was unable to pursue my college career due to ineligibility for my G I Bill Education Benefits.  I resubmitted my disability claim in February 2001 to my local VA office under the impression that my VA Representative would also submit for an upgrade to my discharge type.  See Attachment H. Apparently there was a lack of communication.  My V A Representative never levied an appeal on my stead.  I have reapplied and gained entry to ECU for Fall 2001 (Aug. 14, 2001 start date).  See Attachment I  I was informed July 12, 2001 after several attempts to inquire about the status of my G I Bill that I was still eligible.  See Attachment J The issue of my discharge is affecting my quality of life and placing me into great financial hardship.  My wife and I have already had to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection to protect some of our assets from further degradation.  See Attachment K We have a son named S_, born October 21, 2000.  See Attachment L. I am currently his full time caretaker.  My wife, A_, works the night shift at the local hospital.  In order for me to be successful in my attempt to better my life by going to college and becoming a Registered Nurse, thereby increasing our quality of life and to get out of financial hardship, I must be eligible for the GI Bill Educational Benefits that I paid into upon entering the service and would otherwise be eligible for per the eligibility requirement(s) of Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty Educational Assistance Program (Chapter 30).

I served more than 30 months of an obligation of 3 years or longer.  The loss of the Education Benefits has left me few choices for financing my college career.  I have already had to take out Federal Un/Subsidized Loans to pursue my education, subsequently leaving me without childcare for my son, and forcing my wife and I to try to manage keeping him at home without the benefit of weekly childcare.  See Attachment M.  As previously stated my wife works the night shift as a Nurse from 6:15 P. M. to 7:15 A. M. at the local hospital.  My current class schedule has me in class Monday through Friday 10:00 A. M. to 3:15 P. M. See Attachment N.  This has caused added stress and a significant decrease in our quality of life due to the long hours for my wife and an added load on me of additional child care responsibilities due to my wife's fatigue and sporadic sleep.  The Education Benefits would allow us to place our son 'in a qualified child care setting which would alleviate the extra sleepless hours for my wife and decrease the added stress on my duties as a husband, father of a young child, and a full time college student.  It would also decrease the amount of Federal Un/Subsidized Loans taken in the pursuit of my education and career goals.

In light of the fact that I am currently a Disabled Veteran receiving V A Disability Compensation for Service Connected injuries incurred in the military while on active duty; I am requesting an expedited review and upgrade of my discharge status.  I am under the opinion that it should not be General Under Honorable for weight control failure as reported.  It should, at the very least, be Honorable discharge for service-connected disabilities or for the convenience of the military.  I am also requesting that the upgraded date of discharge recorded on the DD 215 date be no later than July 3l, 2001.  I am requesting that the date be such so that I will be awarded back pay for tuition reimbursement due to the fact that my discharge type is erroneously recorded as General Under Honorable for weight control failure versus "Honorable" discharge for service connected disabilities or for the convenience of the military.

I truly believe that I am eligible for Education Benefits therefore I am sending this notice of appeal to have my claim for Educational Benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty Education Assistance Program (Chapter 30) be reviewed and subsequently approved based on the information above and attachments.  I am currently actively enrolled at East Carolina University as a degree-seeking student with an intended Major in Nursing.  I appreciate your assistance in this expedited review of eligibility and I look forward to hearing from you in regards to my request.  Sincerely,

5.  Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by the Applicant, in his request that he be given the opportunity to upgrade his General (Under Honorable Conditions Discharge) to a Honorable Discharge.

The (FSM) entered the US Marine Corp Services on may 24,1993 until March 02, 1997 a period of over (3) years (9) Months of creditable service.  During this period the (FSM) served with (3) Non-Judicial Punishments Articles (1) charge of violation of a lawful order by wrongfully being Off -Limits in a Posted area he knew to be in violation.  The FSM also received (2) NJP Article 86's for not being at a place at the appointed time and for not meeting weight standards and failing to meet Marine Corp fitness and appearance requirements. The (FSM) performed his military duties without any further difficulty and is questioning the stated reason on his narrative of discharge character of service discharge.  The (FSM) before his subsequent discharge was under going a treatment for his Chronis back problem he feels prevented him from performing any physical activity and making his weight standard and fitness requirements that eventually lead to his early release from military service.  The FSM request now to have his discharge up-graded to seek entitlements and claim benefits for what he feels is a service connected medical conditions that occurred in military service.

The (FSM) desires now to have his General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge upgraded to an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps, since he was separated with less than (90) days until he would have reached his full term of service (4) years.

The FSM feels the character of service was not a accurate, portrayal of his term of service and it did not take in consideration of the fact that his medical condition prevented him from full duty prior to and at the time of separation.

The (FSM) now feels the service connected condition he is now experiencing is directly related and aggravated by his military service and that he should be compensated for his medical condition.  The service connected condition is preventing the (FSM) from a stable employment future and is now seeking to have his discharge up-graded to an Honorable Discharge with service connection.

We respectfully request that the (FSM) be given complete and duly consideration by the board.  We also respectfully request that the board consider each reasonable explanation submitted by the (FSM) who now wishes to seeks to correct the mistakes that he feels that he make, while a member of the United States Marine Corp.

We ask for the Boards careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record Used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.

Documentation

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

Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
General Discharge Certificate dated March 3
Seventeen pages from Applicant's medical record
Twenty-five pages from VA Medical Center
Letter from Office of Admission, East Carolina University dated March 23, 2000
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs regarding benefit increase dated December 28, 2000
Letters from Department of Veterans Affairs dated April 10, 2001, August 7, 2001, July 12, 2001
Letter from Office of Admission, East Carolina University dated May 8, 2001
Letter from East Carolina University dated March 6, 2002
Final Decree from United States Bankruptcy Court dated September 21, 2001
Certificate of Live Birth 
Son's social security card
Statement from College Foundation Inc dated February 21, 2002
Individual class schedule for Fall 2001 and Spring 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USMCR(J)		921009 - 930525	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930526		Date of Discharge:  970303

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  70

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (10)		Conduct:  4.0 (10)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Letter of Appreciation, SSDR (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6215.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930524:	Pre-enlistment weight: 207 pounds.

930526:	Enlistment weight:  200 pounds.

930720:	Current weight:  189 pounds.  USMC standards max. 186 pounds.  Not within USMC standards.  Recruit diet.  Applicant educated and returned to duty.

950519:	Weight 214 pounds, body fat: 16.2%.

950613:	Applicant reported to BAS for body fat measurement and weight eval.  Body Fat: 16.2%.  Weight:   214 pounds.  Applicant does not exceed body fat percentage but does exceed max weight by 22 pounds.  

950619:	Applicant determined to be overweight not due to a pathological disorder and directed to meet the following weight reduction goal: 3 pounds per month.  Weight goal is 192 pounds to be attained no later than 6 months from this date.

960108:	Acknowledged eligibility but non-recommendation for promotion to Cpl for the months Jan-Mar96 because of assignment to the Weight Control Program.

960202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Violate a lawful general order, to wit: paragraph 6.a, Marine Corps Bases Japan Order 5800.6, dated 9 October 1995; by wrongfully being in an established "Off-Limits" area between the hours of 0100-0500, the off-limits area known as Gate 2 Street and the Moromi Bar District on 0132, 960127.
Awarded forfeiture of $535.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 30 days.  Restriction and extra duty for 15 days suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

960401:	Acknowledged eligibility but non-recommendation for promotion to Cpl for the months of Apr-Jun96 because of recent punitive actions and assignment to Weight Control Program.

960503:	Applicant counseled for lack of progress in attaining weight loss goals.

960509:	Weigh-in roster: 212 pounds, 17% body fat.

960510:	Medical evaluation requested for unfavorable military appearance and weight exceeding the allowable standards contained in the reference.  Percentage body fat: 17%…weight: 212 lbs.

960510:	Applicant placed in Physical Training Platoon (PTP) for weight control and personal appearance.

960521:	Applicant examined and found to be not within weight standards, fit to participate in a physical exercise program and overweight not due to pathological disorder.  Following actions recommended: weight reduction diet, physical exercise program, recommended loss of 3.3 pounds per month for a total of 20 pounds over a 6 month period.

960523:	Weigh-in roster: 217 pounds, 19.3% body fat.

960529:	Applicant determined to be overweight and directed to meet the following weight reduction goal: 3.3 pounds per month.  Weight goal is 192 pounds to be attained no later than 6 months from this date.

960529:	Initial weight control counseling: first assignment to the program and therefore is required to lose 3.3 pounds per month for 6 months.

960531: 	Weigh-in roster: 217 pounds, 20.2% body fat.

960603:	Applicant counseled on unsatisfactory performance, did not attain weight loss goal of 3.3 pounds.

960607: 	Weigh-in roster: 215 pounds, 20.2% body fat.  Body fat jumped from 17% to 20.2%.

960607:	Applicant failed PFT.

960621:	Weigh-in roster: 217 pounds, 20.2% body fat.

960624:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, unauthorized absence, by failing to attend a PTP session.  Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960628:	Weigh-in roster: 217 pounds, 21.1% body fat.

960719:	Weigh-in roster: 215 pounds, 21.1% body fat.

960801:	Weigh-in roster: 214 pounds, 18.6% body fat.

960806:	Applicant on light duty for muscle spasms.  Expires 960823.

960903:	Weigh-in roster: 216 pounds, 19.9% body fat.  

960906:	Applicant on light duty for stomach disorder.  Expires 960914.

960909:	Acknowledged eligibility but non-recommendation for promotion to Cpl for the months of October – December 96 because of being assigned to the Weight Control Program.

960918:	Applicant on light duty for muscle spasms back.  Expires 960920.

960930:	Weigh-in roster: 214 pounds, 19.9% body fat.

961001:	Applicant counseled on unsatisfactory performance for the period from 960831 to 961001, did not attain weight loss goal of 3.3 pounds.

961002:	Weigh-in roster: 218 pounds, 19% body fat.

961003:	Applicant failed PRT.  Run time:  34:00.

961004:	Applicant on light duty for muscle strain.  Expires 961011.

961015:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, continued lack of improvement/will or want to improve while assigned to the weight control program; lack of motivation.  Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

961016:	Applicant's rebuttal to page 11 dated 961015.

961017:	PFT:  194.

961017:	Applicant on light duty for lower back pain.  Expires 961024.

961022:	Applicant to SGTMAJ/XO to get off the program.

961024:	Weigh-in roster: 223 pounds, 23.7% body fat.

961029:	Applicant on light duty for back spasms - waiting for eval for future duty.

961029:	Applicant counseled on unsatisfactory performance for the period from 961001 to 961030, did not attain weight loss goal of 3.3 pounds.

961031:	Weigh-in roster: 223 pounds, 24.6% body fat.

961122:	Weigh-in roster: 216 pounds, 21% body fat.

961125:	Weigh-in roster: 213 pounds, 21.8% body fat.

961204:	Weigh-in roster: 216 pounds, 21.4% body fat.

961207:	Applicant UA from PTP PFT.

961212:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Specifically, Continued lack of improvement/will or want to improve while assigned to the weight control program.  Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

961214:	Applicant unable to participate in PFT due to being on light duty.

961216:	Weigh-in roster: 213 pounds, 18.3% body fat.

961218:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
Specification 1: Unauthorized absence from PTP at MASS-1, MACG-28 2D MAW, was 30 minutes late to PTP on 961207.
Specification 2: Unauthorized absence from Squadron PTP, was late for PTP on 961206.
Awarded forfeiture of $400.00 per month for 1 month, extra duties for 30 days, reduction to PFC.  Forfeiture and extra duty suspended for 60 days.  Not appealed.

961220:	Weigh-in roster: 216 pounds, 19.5% body fat.

970127:	Weigh-in roster: 222 pounds, 19% body fat. 

970213:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for a general discharge (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties and weight control failure.

970213:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

970213:	Commanding Officer recommended a honorable discharge due to unsatisfactory performance of duties and weight control failure.  The factual basis for the recommendation was the failure to conform to Marine Corps height/weight standards.  Applicant’s maximum weight is 192 pounds.  On 22 May 1996 he was assigned to the weight control program at a weight of 217 pounds.  Although he has been assigned to the weight control program on at least one other occasion, he has failed to maintain Marine Corps height/weight standards.

970225:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

970225:	GCMCA [Commander, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of weight control failure.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970303 under honorable conditions (general) due to weight control failure (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issues 1-5.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis and treatment to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  The inability to exercise does not excuse a Marine from meeting height/weight standards.  The Applicant failed to demonstrate there was an inequity in the fact the Applicant remained on the weight control program while meeting body fat percentages but not his assigned weight goal.  No other narrative reason other than weight control failure more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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 service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on hardship, the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6215, WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

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

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

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

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.   

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

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