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

 ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD02-01084

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020723, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he 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 030424.  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:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Failure to Participate (Reserve not on active duty) (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.  ISSUES OF LAW, FACT, OR DISCRETION RELATING TO THE IMPROPRIETY IN DISCHARGE CAUSED BY FAILURE TO FOLLOW MARINE CORPS NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS.

1.  Marine Corps Order (hereinafter "MCO") 1900.16F, paragraph 6306 states that "the [separation] proceedings must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure procedural and legal completeness with paramount focus directed towards ensuring that the Marine has been afforded the opportunity to exercise all rights due a respondent." (Exhibit L)

2.  The discharge was improper because the administrative discharge ignored "Notification Procedures/Requirements" and rights granted to Marines under Marine Corps Order 1900.16F, paragraph 6303, 3(a)(5). (Exhibit M)

3.  Adequate notice is a fundamental requirement of due process.  The purpose of notice is to advise the Marine of the reason(s) for the proposed discharge action, and the right to contest the action so that a meaningful defense may be prepared.  Close adherence to notice requirements is essential to a fair proceeding.

4.  Marine Corps Order 1900.16F, paragraph 6303, 3(a)(5) grants Marines the right in the "Acknowledgment of Rights" (hereinafter "AOR") form to obtain copies of all documents that were forwarded to the Commanding General supporting the proposed discharge. (Exhibit M)

5.  This Marine exercised his right granted under Marine Corps Order 1900.16F, paragraph 6303, 3(a)(5) to obtain copies of all documents that were forwarded to the Commanding General supporting the proposed discharge on October 24, 1992. (Exhibit E).  To insure
there was no confusion regarding my request to obtain the documents, I specifically itemized what rights I was exercising and attached them to the AOR form.

6.  This Marine again exercised his under Marine Corps Order 1900.16F, paragraph 6303, 3(a)(5) to obtain copies of all documents that were forwarded to the Commanding General supporting the proposed discharge via letter certified mail on April 7, 1993. (Exhibit G)

7.  This Marine's separation package was sent by the Command and received by the Commanding General, Marine Reserve Force, FMF, USMCR, New Orleans, Louisiana, by March 9, 1993.  This was almost 1 (one) whole month before this Marine's second request to receive rights granted to him in MCO 1900.16F, paragraph 6303, 3(a)(5). (Exhibit N)

8.  The general rule that an administrative discharge, which ignores procedural rights or regulations, exceeds applicable statutory authority, or violates minimum concepts of basic fairness, is void is well settled in case law.

9.  The USMCR and Command cannot provide evidence to this board they followed MARFORRES Legal SOP and provided this Marine with the documentation requested in the AOR form, paragraph 3, 4th right.

10.  In preparing the "Command Letter of Recommendation" the Command was able to describe the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge as well as address perceived false/inaccurate assertions or allegations made by this Marine in my statement or rebuttal.

11.  Due to the violation of procedural rights, this Marine was unable to examine whether my proposed discharge was based upon reasons not contained in the notice or whether the battalion Doctor's medical examination of this Marine was forwarded to the discharging authority.

12.  Because of the validity of issue #11, and the fact that this Marine's discharge was improper, this Marine's discharge should be recharacterized to Honorable.

13.  Because this Marine's discharge violated minimum concepts of fairness, this Marine's right to contest the action so that a meaningful defense could be prepared was impaired and therefore the discharge was inequitable and should be recharacterized to Honorable.

II.  ISSUES OF LAW, FACT, OR DISCRETION RELATING TO THE IMPROPRIETY IN DISCHARGE CAUSED BY FAILURE TO FOLLOW MARINE CORPS POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO RESERVIST MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS.

1.  MCOP1001R.IJ, paragraph 3l05 (6), states "Marine Reservists are either fit for full duty or not fit for full duty....Reservists will not perform any category of AD or IDT when found not fit for full duty." (Exhibit 0)

2.  MCO P1001R.1J 3105 6(a)(1) states "The Reservist is responsible for notifying the Medical Department Representative (MDR) or CO/OIC/OpSponsor/I-I/ Site commander within 5 days after the injury/medical condition has occurred.  Documentation from the Marine's attending physician must be provided to the unit." (Exhibit 0)

3.  Per MCO P1001R.1J, paragraph 3105 (6)(a)(1), this Marine's Doctor notified the Command via letter dated March 5, 1992 that I was under his care for treatment of DSM III: 309.28 (adjustment disorder), and it was his belief that I should be excused from any participation with military duty until further notice. (Exhibit C)

4.  MCO P1001R.IJ, paragraph 3105 6(a) and/or 3105 6(b) states that Marines who are not fit for full duty will be classified as either "Temporary Not Physically Qualified Determination" (hereinafter "TNPQ") or a "Not Physically Qualified Determination" (hereinafter "NPQ"). (Exhibit 0 and P)

5.  Upon receipt of notification from this Marine's doctor that I was ill, the Command should have followed Marine Corps regulations and ascertained from my Doctor whether my medical condition was a service connected medical condition and the anticipated length of the medical condition.

6.  The Command made no inquiries of my Doctor or took other steps to obtain the information.

7.  Command should have obtained relevant information from my doctor and made a determination whether my absence was to be identified as "TNPQ" or "NPQ" and whether or not I should have received a Notice of Eligibility letter authorizing me of my right to incapacitation pay (MCO P1001R.1J, paragraph 31056(c). (Exhibit P)

8.  Instead, the Command continued to count me absent from my drills despite a second letter from my Doctor dated May 7, 1992 stating that when I was in a state of panic, I was not capable of rational thinking and could unconsciously endanger the welfare of others. (Exhibit Q)

9.  MCO P1001R.IJ, paragraph 3202 3(b)(1) and (2), states "excused absences may be granted for medical condition or injury of the Reservist prior to IDT when the attending physician certifies that attendance at IDT would be detrimental to the health or welfare of the Reservist or there is military medical determination of not fit for full duty to include TNPQ, NPQ and Notice of Eligibility cases ". The Command continued to disregard my physician's letters and initiated discharge proceedings. (Exhibit R)

10.  In a joint letter to the Commanding General, 4th Marine Division dated January 8, 1993, the Inspector-Instructor and Commanding Officer state in paragraph 3 (Exhibit S) that I was not responsive in appearing for psychiatric interviews despite repeated rescheduling.

11.  The letter to the Commanding General, 4th Marine Division dated January 8, 1993, statement is inaccurate as I met with the battalion physician Dr. G_ at Ft.  Knox.  It was during that meeting with Dr. G_ that he concurred with my doctor that it was in my best interest to be separated from the reserves at that time.

12.  Even if this board takes the content of the aforementioned letter as true, I was not required by Marine Corps Orders or regulations to undergo psychiatric interviews conducted by I-I staff for them to initiate a "TNPQ" or "NPQ" determination as required per Marine Corps Orders and regulations.

13.  Nowhere in MCO or regulations does it say that a Reservist diagnosed with an injury or medical condition must be examined by a military Medical Department Representative.

14.  MCO P1001R.1J 3105 6(a)(1) states that "The Reservist is responsible for notifying the Medical Department Representative (MDR) or CO/OIC/OpSponsor/I-I/ Site commander within 5 days after the injury/medical condition has occurred.  Documentation from the Marine's attending physician must be provided to the unit." (See Issue 3, #3) (Exhibit 0).

15.  MCO P1001R.1J 3105 6(b) states that for NPQ determination, "in the absence of a military medical officer's findings, documentation from a civilian physician will suffice." (Exhibit P)

16.  Due to the violation of validly prescribed MCO's and requirements intended to confer important procedural benefits upon this Marine, this Marine's discharge should be recharacterized to Honorable.

17.  Because this Marine's discharge violated minimum concepts of fairness and prohibited this Marine's right to recovery and continued service, the discharge was inequitable and should be recharacterized to Honorable.

III.  ISSUES OF LAW, FACT, OR DISCRETION RELATING TO THE INEQUITABLE DISCHARGE CAUSED BY FAILURE TO FOLLOW MARINE CORPS POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.

1.  This Marine's discharge was inequitable because the severity of the discharge did not take into consideration this Marine's overall service record, mitigating factors apparent to the command, and this Marine's capacity to serve.

2.  This Marine's service record prior to medical condition was exemplary.

3.  This Marine served honorably in Desert Shield/Storm and all periods of active duty.

4.  Prior to medical condition, Marine faithfully met all reserve obligations and never had an unexcused absence from IDT.

5.  This Marine's conduct and efficiency ratings were high and indicative of honorable service during the period rated prior to medical condition.

6.  This Marine received numerous medals, campaign and routine decorations, ribbons and unit citations for honorable service in Desert Shield/Storm.

7.  This Marine participated in one of the few reserve units to see substantial combat resulting in the award of a combat action ribbon.

8.  Prior to medical condition, this Marine was honored and recognized for his participation in the USMCR Toys for Tots program. (Exhibit A)

9.  This Marine's medical condition directly contributed to his ability to perform his duties adequately. (Exhibit C & Q)

10.  In giving Marine other than honorable discharge, the Marine's command failed to consider mitigating factors.

11.  Marine's command was informed of Marine's medical condition as soon as diagnosis was made.

12.  Command failed to appreciate the fact that due to Marine's medical condition, it was beyond this Marine's control to comply with command's wishes of Marine returning to Ft. Knox for evaluations.

13.  Command failed to consider that Marine's medical condition was a situational maladjustment that could be cured with time and Marine could return to duty after the expiration of either a "TNQP" or "NPQ" determination.

14.  Marine's doctor's diagnosis and medical advice was ignored by Marine's command and Marine was continuously counted absent from IDT.

15.  Marine's medical condition is further evidenced by his poor academic performance at the University of Kentucky immediately upon his return from Desert Shield/Storm. (Exhibit J)

16.  Marine's post service conduct proved that with the passage of time and increased maturation, Marine could have returned to duty and performed satisfactorily.

17.  Marine returned to University of Kentucky after a one-year hiatus and earned his B.B.A with a 3.32 GPA. (Exhibit H)

18.  Marine went on to apply, get accepted to and graduate from the University of Kentucky School of law. (Exhibit H)

19.  Marine is now an officer of the court as a licensed practicing attorney in Kentucky. (Exhibit M)

Documentation

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

Applicant's letter to the Board dtd Jul 17, 2002
Applicant's Statement of the Facts (4 pages)
Exhibit A - Certificate of Appreciation, USMC, dtd Jan 6, 1990
Exhibit B - Copy of DD Form 214 (901126 - 910513)
Exhibit C - University of Kentucky, Staff Therapist, letter, dtd Mar 5, 1992, to the USMC concerning Applicant's medical situation
Exhibit D - CO/Inspector-Instructor Letter of Notification of Separation Proceedings to the Applicant, dtd Sep 26, 1992, with Affidavit of Service by Mail from GYSGT T.S. H_, USMC
Note to Applicant from GYSGT H_, dtd Oct 20, 1992
Exhibit E - Applicant's signed Acknowledgement of Rights to be Exercised or Waived during Separation Proceedings, dtd Oct 4, 1992
Exhibit F - Letter of Gear Return to Applicant, dtd Mar 23, 1993
Exhibit G - Applicant's letter to USMC concerning Gear Return, dtd Apr 7, 1993 (2 pages)
Exhibit H - Applicant's transcripts from University of Kentucky (4 pages)
Exhibit I - Buchanan Counseling Center, Methodist Hospital of Indiana, letter, dtd Jun 14, 1994, concerning Applicant's medical situation
Exhibit J - University of Kentucky ltr, dtd Aug 5, 1994, to Registrar Office, requesting Applicant's withdrawal from all course in the Fall 91/Spring 92 semesters due to medical reasons
Exhibit K - Applicant's Membership Card, Kentucky Bar Association, Frankfort, Kentucky
Exhibit M - Portion of Chapter 6 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (45 pages)
Exhibit N -Staff Judge Advocate ltr to the Commanding General, dtd Mar 9, 1993 concerning Applicant's discharge processing
Exhibits O, P & R - Portion of the Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual (34 pages)
Exhibit Q - University of Kentucky letter, dtd May 7, 1992, to USMC concerning Applicant's treatment for Adjustment Disorder (DSM III - 309.28)
Exhibit S - CO/Inspector-Instructor, Separation Authority letter, dtd Jan 8, 1993

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None
Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  881109		Date of Discharge:  930323

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  18
	Inactive:  03  03  27

Age at Entry: 17 (Parental consent)	Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  78

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.9 (5)		Conduct:  3.7 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  CAR, MUC, NDSM, NUC, SWASM(w/2 Bronze Stars), SSDR, KLM, Expert Rifle Badge, KLM(K)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Failure to Participate (Reserve not on active duty) (administrative discharge board required but waived); authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890626:	Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48 scheduled drills and not less than 14 days of annual training per year for 6 years upon completion of initial active duty training.

Undated:	Acknowledgement that Applicant was eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl during October 91 because of lack of maturity. 

911208:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [unsatisfactory participation in the SMCR - failure to attend drills].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  [APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE NOT ON COUNSELING PAGE.]

Undated:	Acknowledgement that Applicant was eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl during January 92 because of lack of maturity. 

920111:	Reduction Notification to Applicant reducing him to Private First Class with date of rank of 26 June 1989 and an effective date of 11 January 1992 due to continued unsatisfactory participation in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.

920305:	University of Kentucky (Staff Therapist) advises USMC that Applicant is under his care for DSM III: 309.28 and requested he be excused from any participation with military duty until further notice.

920507:	University of Kentucky (Staff Therapist’s) letter to USMC, concerning Applicant's medical treatment.

920515:	Medical officer concurs that Applicant not fit for military service.  Recommend Applicant continue counseling.

920926:	Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested.  Applicant receipted for letter by return signature.   

921004:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected 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.

921004:	Applicant's letter to the USMC (CG, 4TH MARDIV (REIN)) responding to the separation proceedings.

921123:	Affidavit of Service by Mail - GYSGT H_, USMC, personally mailed the original Notification of Separation Proceedings dated 26 Sep 92, the Acknowledgement of Rights form, and the Purpose and Scope of the Navy Discharge Review Board and the Board for Correction of Naval Records form, by CERTIFIED MAIL (Return Receipted Requested) using CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P 373 421 697 to Pvt J_ D. G_ (Applicant).

930108:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.  The factual basis for this recommendation was excessive unexcused absences from regularly scheduled drills, a total of 64 unexcused absences.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  "The subject Marine has established a pattern of repetitive absenteeism from scheduled drills.  Since June 1991 the subject Marine has missed 64 out of the past 64 regularly scheduled drills without authorization or excusal.  Attempts have been made via separate correspondence in order that the subject Marine may regain a satisfactory drill status.  To date the subject Marine has not made any attempt to regain a satisfactory drill status…  PFC G_ (Applicant) was initially considered for a medical discharge, but was not responsive in appearing for psychiatric interviews despite repeated rescheduling.  As evidenced by the length of time to accumulate 64 missed drills, this unit has tried to work with PFC G_ (Applicant) to diagnose what may in fact be a legitimate medical problem.  Numerous contacts have been made with SNM and his family, resulting in commitments to pursue a medical review, but without follow through on the part of PFC G_ (Applicant).  At this point, there is no alternative but to recommend PFC G_ (Applicant) for a discharge based upon his non-performance."

930109:	Reduction Notification to Applicant reducing him to Private with date of rank of 27 June 1989 and an effective date of 9 January 1993 due to continued unsatisfactory participation in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.

930309:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930310:	GCMCA [CG, Marine Reserve Force] directed the Applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 930323 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to Failure to Participate (Reserve not on active duty) (A, B, and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).  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 (E and F). 

Issues I, 1-13.  The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because he claims he did not receive copies of all documents that were forwarded to the separation authority supporting the basis for the separation.  The responsibility is on the Applicant to provide credible documentation that he did not receive these documents, not on his command to prove that they forwarded copies to the Applicant.  The record indicates that the Applicant’s command mailed the Applicant at least some of the documents used to support the basis for separation on 921123.  The Board found that the Applicant’s request to his I-I staff dated 7 April, 1993 to provide the earlier requested copies of documentation is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity regarding his administrative separation rights.  The Applicant implies in his issues that his possession of the copies of all documents that were forwarded to the separation authority supporting the basis for the separation would have enabled him to further contest his separation beyond his election of rights that he completed on 921004.  This is a false assumption.  The Applicant chose to contest his proposed discharge through a statement to the separation authority and waived his right to counsel and to contest his separation at an administrative discharge board.  His possession of the requested copies of documentation would not have provided him any additional right with which to contest his separation.  The Board found that the rights of the Applicant would not have been prejudiced by his alleged failure to receive copies of the separation documents.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issues II, 1-17.  The Applicant’s issues are without merit.  Though MCO P1001R.1J was not in effect at the time of his separation, even under current standards, the letters provided by his medical doctor from the University of Kentucky on 920305 and 920507 would only have excused him from the drill periods immediately after submission of those medical evaluations.  This is in fact what occurred at the time, as the record reflects that the Applicant was excused from the March and May 1992 drill weekends.  The statements and documentation provided by the Applicant and the medical evaluations contained in the official record fail to refute the presumption of regularity that the Applicant was properly and equitably denied placement in a Temporarily Not Physically Qualified (TNPG) or Not Physically Qualified (NPQ) status.  In addition, those medical documents alone do not provide a valid basis for the Applicant’s unsatisfactory participation during the subsequent one year of service.  Further, the Applicant’s attempt to mitigate his unsatisfactory participation due to his adjustment disorder during his final year of service does not mitigate his failure to participate in his unit’s drills in the nine months prior to his civilian doctor’s evaluation of 920305.  The Board does not consider the Applicant’s medical condition to be retroactive and thereby sufficient to excuse him for nine months of unsatisfactory participation between June 1991 and February 1992.  While he may feel that his mental condition during the spring of 1992 should mitigate his misconduct, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant fulfilled his responsibilities that would have been necessary for him to be discharged for medical reasons or to be placed in a TNPQ or NPQ status.  Relief is therefore denied.

Issues III, 1-8.  The Applicant’s issues are without merit.  While he may feel that his service during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, decorations, and overall service record prior to his period of unexcused absences are factors that should mitigate his characterization of service, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The Applicant’s conduct markings are below the standard required for an honorable characterization.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issues III, 9-15.  The Board documented 16 unexcused absences and presumes the Applicant was absent for at least 10 more consecutive drill periods prior to an excused absence which coincides with the University of Kentucky (Staff Therapist) letter of 920305 advising the USMC that the Applicant was under care for DSM III: 309.28 and requested that he be excused from any participation with military duty until further notice.   It is the Applicant’s responsibility to provide medical documentation excusing him from drill prior to the upcoming drill period, not months later.  Poor academic performance at a university is not grounds for being excused from a scheduled drill period with the SMCR.  The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to overcome the presumption of regularity regarding his Commanding Officer’s statement that the Applicant did not meet his responsibilities in determining whether or not the Applicant should have been placed in a TNPQ or NPQ status.  The Board found no indication that he was either in or was improperly or inequitably denied such status.  The Board found that the medical documentation reviewed does not mitigate his misconduct.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issues III, 16-19.   A discharge under other than honorable conditions is warranted when a Marine is unexcused and absent from ten consecutive drill periods.  The Applicant did not attend a scheduled drill period with his unit for eighteen months prior to his administrative separation.  Only 10 of these 64 drills were excused.  The Board found no reason to believe that any additional time should have been afforded the Applicant to correct his deficiencies.  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 the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offenses for which he was discharged.  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 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D, effective 890627 until 950817) states that a Marine may be separated for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve under criteria established in MCO P10014.1.

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1G.

C.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D, effective 890627 until 950817).

D.  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.  

E.  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.

F.  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