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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-MAJ, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01120

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050621.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051102.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of resignation due to unacceptable conduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

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

“I believe my characterization of service (General/Under Honorable conditions) was inequitable and reactionary because my separation was based on one isolated event in more than fourteen years of honorable and faithful service with no other adverse action.  Additional comments and supporting documentation are attached to this application (refer to letter).”

“6 June 2005
From:	Applicant
To:	Senior Member, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB)
Subj:	REQUEST FOR UPGRADE OF DISCHARGE

1.	This letter and supporting documentation is my personal request for a review of my discharge issued by the United States Marine Corps, though the Secretary of the Navy, on 15 October 2003.  Recognizing that the NDRB is authorized to change the characterization of service, my goal is to seek an upgrade to my discharge status from General to Honorable.

2.	As stated under block 6 of DD Form 293, I genuinely believe that my characterization of service was inequitable and reactionary because a General discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive portions of service.  In my case, the discharge was based on one isolated event in more than fourteen years of honorable and faithful service, under peace-time and combat conditions, to the Marine Corps.

3.	To summarize the tragic events of 25 June 2002, I made a morally questionable decision by becoming intoxicated during post mess-night activities, which led to hugging and kissing a female second lieutenant.  Assuming full responsibility for my inexcusable actions, I fully admitted my misconduct and was subsequently subjected to the following disciplinary proceedings: relieved of my command as the Combat Instructor Company Commander, Instructor Battalion; an adverse fitness report; pleading guilty at Commanding General’s Non-Judicial Punishment; tendering a resignation; and discharge from the Marine Corps on 15 October 2003 with a General, Under Honorable characterization of service.  Months prior to the discharge, I submitted written appeals to the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the Secretary of the Navy, seeking a close case, a board of inquiry, and a temporary suspension of my sentence.  In a final and desperate act, I filed for a withdrawal of my resignation for cause.  It was only after receiving indications that my request for administrative leave awaiting final adjudication of my case would be denied, that I withdrew my letter and agreed to abide by the conditions as established in the pre-trial agreement.

4.	My request for clemency is based on a number of factors:

•	I bear the burden of the consequences of my actions on the evening of 25 June 2002.  From the beginning, I have admitted my wrong doing and have fully recognized the embarrassment it has caused the Marine Corps and my family. It has also been the source of personal ruin, as it terminated what could have otherwise been a very successful profession of arms.  My terrible judgment eats away at me daily as I read about my Marines engaging the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
•	A review of my records, statements, supporting documents, facts, and the circumstances unique to my case clearly demonstrate that my military service was exemplary and meritorious. Enclosed with this letter are a number of testimonials, both solicited and unsolicited which attest to my devotion and faithful service to the Corps.  Each statement has varying degrees of emotion, but all are seeking what has been my objective: a second chance, redemption. Could so many men be so wrong in their assessment of my character?
•	Aside from my unfortunate incident which led to my pre-mature discharge from the Marines, this was the only occurrence in my professional and personal lifetime in which I had been in trouble. In fact, I have no record of Article 15, Non-Judicial Punishment, arrests, civil convictions or any other manner of disciplinary action and/or infractions.
•	I contend that my length of military service and impeccable record should have been evaluated and balanced against the seriousness of my offense.  My years of exemplary service and numerous commendations should have contributed in some fashion to a favorable outcome.
•	I also believe that my potential for continued service – despite forfeiting any future hope of promotion and screening for command - and rehabilitation should have been viewed as mitigating factors.  My documented and genuine admission of wrongdoing; assuming personal responsibility for my actions; my personal display of remorse and contrition; and getting assistance to deal with my misconduct were elements that should have resulted in some form of mitigation. Was my “crime” so heinous and despicable that it did not warrant a second chance?
•	Knowing that the board is authorized to consider post-military service in the re-characterization of a discharge, I offer the following critical information: in my present position (since 7 September 2003) with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) I have received a top secret clearance to include a courier card; one in-position promotion; two performance related cash awards: two certificates of accomplishment; and most important entrusted with the responsibility of leading 650 TSA airport screeners, managing a 35 million travel budget, and contract services valued at 2 million. Equally important is that in an effort to continue my dedication to the uniformed services, I have recently (1 June 2005, via sworn oath) been assessed into the Maryland Army National Guard.  At a time when segments of the military population are filing lawsuits over the “stop-loss” policy and others in combat zones are refusing to execute orders from their commanders, I stand ready, willing, and able to once again answer the call to arms.

5.	This discharge placed on me is both unwarranted and undeserved.  It has served to cast a very negative shadow on my life, and has sullied my reputation despite my outstanding post-service conduct, performance and contribution to the federal government.

6.	I am hopeful that once the board reviews my record, they will conclude that there is no risk of embarrassment in granting me relief.  I only ask for the board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of the evidence presented in this package in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  Thank you for your time, interest, and concern in this very important matter.

[Signed]
H_ E. M_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (19930120 – 20031015)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (19890414 – 19930119)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (19890206 - 19890413)
Honorable Discharge Certificate dtd April 13, 1989
Character Reference ltr from Col S_ W. B_, USMC, CoS, Marine Forces, Central Command dtd February 20 2004
Character Reference ltr from LtCol E. H. C_, USMC(Ret), dtd January 26, 2004
Character Reference ltr from C_ C. C_, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, dtd January 24, 2005
Character Reference ltr from Col R. A. G_, USMC(Ret), MCCDC, Quantico, dtd January 25, 2004
Character Reference ltr from LtCol M.J. M_, USMC, Marine Corps Systems Command, undtd
Character Reference ltr from Maj D.C. R_, II, USMC(Ret), dtd February 6, 2003
Letter of Reference from Col M_ J. P_, USMC, dtd January 5, 2004
Character Reference ltr from LtCol P. E. S_, USMC, dtd January 16, 2004
Letter of Reference from CO, NROTC Unit, University of Nebraska, D.L. W_, dtd January 21, 2004
Applicant’s letter to the Office of the Secretary of the Navy dtd April 8, 2003, requesting a Close Case Recommendation (2 pages)
Applicant’s letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, via CG, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, dtd January 16, 2003, requesting a Close Case Recommendation
Letter of Recommendation for Applicant’s Continuation on active duty from LtCol M. J. M_, USMC, dtd January 13, 2003
Letter of Recommendation for Applicant’s Continuation on active duty from LtCol E. H. C_, USMC, dtd December 13, 2002
Letter of Record of Performance from Col D_ L. W_, USMC, dtd December 9, 2002
Letter of Record of Performance from Col M_ J. P_, USMC, dtd November 4, 2002
Letter on Behalf of Applicant from 1st Sgt D_ W. M_, USMC, dtd December 3, 2002
Letter requesting Applicant’s retention from LtCol M_ B. K_, USMC, dtd January 2, 2003
Letter requesting Applicant’s retention from P. J. M_, XO, Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, dtd December 20, 2002
Applicant’s lawyer’s (C_ W. G_) ltr to Acting Secretary of the Navy dtd July 2, 2003
33 e-mails to or from the Applicant from various military members and civilians
Thank You to Applicant from T_ M_ dtd August 22, 2000
Farewell letter to Applicant from J_ W_ dtd May 31, 2000
42 Service Record Book pages concerning Applicant’s discharge process
42 Service Record Book pages concerning awards, certificates, letter of appreciation/commendations
75 Service Record Book Pages (USMC Fitness Reports)
College/University transcripts (3 pages)
Applicant’s letter to the FY05 USMC LtCol Selection Board dtd August 11, 2003, requesting the Board not consider his name
Applicant’s enlistment documents (25 pages) including appointment letter and medical exams 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USMCR		19880923 – 19890205	Enter OC Program (Act)
	Active:   USMC (OC)		19890206 – 19890413	Accept USMCR Appt.
	Active:   USMCR (Officer)	19890414 – 19930119	Accept augmentation to 
Regular USMC

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Regular Commission:  19930120	Date of Discharge:  20031015

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    10  08  26  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Regular Commission:  28

Education Level:  17	

Highest Grade:  Major			MOS:  0302 (Infantry Officer)

Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Ribbon (W/*), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (W/2*), Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait), United Nations Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia), Humanitarian Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal (W/3*), Meritorious Un it Commendation, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Navy Unit Commendation, Letter of Appreciation, Rifle Expert Badge (2nd Award), Pistol Sharpshooter Badge.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/RESIGNATION (UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 4104 and SECNAVINST 1920.6B.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930120:	Applicant augmented into the Regular Marine Corps.

020710:	Military Suspect’s Acknowledgement and Waiver of Rights: Applicant advised of suspected violation of UCMJ, Articles 92 Fraternization, 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer, and 134 Adultery; rights to remain silent and consult with military or civilian counsel; and right to terminate interview at any time.  Applicant elected to waive rights and provide a voluntary statement.  [Note: Extracted from Applicant’s Supporting Documentation.]

020711:	Command Investigation into allegation of sexual harassment, fraternization, and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemen by Applicant.
	Opinions: The Applicant violated Articles 92 Fraternization and 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer.  The Applicant did not violate Article 134 Adultery.
Recommendations: That the Command take punitive action against Applicant for violations of Articles 92 for sexual harassment and 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer.  That the Applicant be referred to a substance abuse counselor.  [Note: Extracted from Applicant’s Supporting Documentation.]

020801:	Charges Sheet:  
	CHARGE I:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 – Specification:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School, Training Command, Quantico, Virginia, on active duty, did at The Basic School, between on or about 25 June 2002 and 30 June 2002, violate a lawful general order, to wit:  Article 1165 U.S. Navy Regulations dated 25 January 1993, by wrongfully having an unduly familiar relationship with student Second Lieutenant G_ K_, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, that did not respect differences in grade or rank by attempting to kiss Second Lieutenant K_ on two occasions, hiding in a dark BOQ room with Second Lieutenant K_ and other Second Lieutenants, hugging Second Lieutenant K_, and hiding at the foot of the rack in Second Lieutenant K_’s barracks room.
	CHARGE II:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 – Specification:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School, Training Command, Quantico, Virginia, did, on or about 26 June 2002 , with intent to deceive make to Lieutenant Colonel K_ J. N_, U.S. Marine Corps, an official statement, to wit:  “Shortly thereafter, I entered Second Lieutenant K_’s barracks room (common area) where we again continued our conversation (in private), albeit a short one.  As I recall, I was in her room for only a few minutes and departed after I heard Major M_’s voice in the passageway announcing termination of all post mess night activities.  At that time, I initiated a hug and told her that all will be fine and that she should not ‘sweat the small stuff’”, which statement was totally false in that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, did attempt to kiss Lieutenant G_ K_, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, and was then known by the said Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps to be so false.
	CHARGE III:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128 – Specification:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School, Training Command, Quantico, Virginia, on active duty did at O’Bannon Hall, The Basic School, Quantico, Virginia, on or about 26 June 2002, assault Second Lieutenant G_ K_, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, who was then known by the accused to be a commissioned officer of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, by pulling Second Lieutenant K_ into her barracks room and attempting to kiss her.
	CHARGE IV:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 133 (2 Specifications):
	Specification 1:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School, Training Command, Quantico, Virginia, on active duty, did, at the Basic School between on or about 25 June 2002 and 30 June 2002, wrongfully and dishonorably engage in unduly familiar relationship with student Second Lieutenant G_ K_, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, that did not respect differences in grade or rank by attempting to kiss Second Lieutenant K_ on two occasions, hiding in a dark BOQ room with Second Lieutenant K_ and other Second Lieutenants, hugging Second Lieutenant K_, and hiding at the foot of the rack in Second Lieutenant K_’s barracks room.
	Specification 2:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School, Training Command, Quantico, Virginia, on active duty did at O’Bannon Hall, The Basic School, Quantico, Virginia on or about 26 June 2002, wrongfully and dishonorably pull Second Lieutenant G_ K_, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, into her barracks room and attempt to kiss her, which conduct was unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
	CHARGE V:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 – Specification:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School, Training Command, Quantico, Virginia, on active duty did in a public place to wit:  The Basic School, Quantico, Virginia on or about 26 June 2002, was drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.  [Note: Extracted from Applicant’s Supporting Documentation.]

021115:	Memorandum of General Court-Martial Pretrial Agreement:  Applicant, the accused in a General Court-Martial, and having consulted with counsel, agreed to plead guilty at nonjudicial punishment to violation of Article 133, UCMJ, with the understanding that the Convening Authority agrees to withdraw and dismiss the charge and specification currently pending with prejudice.  Applicant further agreed, immediately following his NJP, he will submit a qualified resignation request, and that the Convening Authority will favorable endorse the resignation request and that the Convening Authority will not recommend administrative separation.  [Note: Extracted from Applicant’s Supporting Documentation.]

021115:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 133:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, the Basic School, Training Command, did wrongfully and dishonorable engage in an unduly familiar relationship with student 2ndLt G_ K_, USMCR, that did not respect the differences in grade or rank, by hugging her and attempting to kiss her on two occasions, which conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. 
	Award:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand.  Not appealed.
[Note: Extracted from Commanding General, Training Command letter dated 20 Dec 2002.]

021115:	Applicant voluntarily tendered his qualified resignation of his commission in lieu of further processing for administrative separation for cause.  The basis for resignation was nonjudicial punishment for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.  Applicant acknowledged, if resignation is accepted, he may receive a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) and if he received advanced education assistance, he may be required to reimburse the U.S. on a pro rata basis for the unserved portion of the active service requirement.

021212:	Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to the Applicant.  Applicant was notified of his right to appeal.

021216:	Applicant responded to punitive letter of reprimand whereby accepting full responsibility for his conduct and the resulting punishment, but request consideration in giving him the opportunity to continue his service in the United States Marine Corps.

021220:	Report of Nonjudicial Punishment from Commanding General, Training Command, to the Secretary of the Navy, via the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command:  NJP imposed on Applicant for violation of 
UCMJ, Article 133, specification:  In that Major H_ E. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, Instructor Battalion, the Basic School, Training Command, did wrongfully and dishonorable engage in an unduly familiar relationship with student 2ndLt G_ K_, USMCR, that did not respect the differences in grade or rank, by hugging her and attempting to kiss her on two occasions, which conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. 
	Award:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand.
Commanding General’s comments: “Major M_ (Applicant) has been accorded the opportunity to read the report of nonjudicial punishment in this case and did not desire to exercise the right to appeal the punishment.  Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Major M_ (Applicant) submitted a qualified resignation request in lieu of further processing for administrative separation for cause.  Recommend [his] request be approved and his service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions).”

930110:	Commanding General, MCCDC forwarded Report of Nonjudicial Punishment to the Secretary of the Navy, via the Commandant of the Marine Corps, recommending the Applicant’s resignation request be approved.  Further recommended the Applicant’s service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  The Applicant was not required to show cause.

030116:	Applicant submitted a request to the Secretary of the Navy requesting that his letter of resignation be denied and that his officer misconduct case be closed, or alternatively, requesting he be afforded the opportunity to show cause for retention at a Board of Inquiry.

030124:	In violation of pretrial agreement, Applicant submitted a request to the Secretary of the Navy requesting to withdraw his qualified resignation of his commission and that he be given an opportunity to show cause for retention at a Board of Inquiry.

030213:	President, Marine Corps University/Command General, Education Command, forwarded Applicant’s request for withdrawal of resignation, to the Secretary of the Navy via the CG, Training Command, the CG, Training and Education Command, the CG, MCCDC and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

030220:	CG, Training Command, Quantico, VA forwarded Applicant’s request for withdrawal of resignation, to the Secretary of the Navy via the CG, Training and Education Command, the CG, MCCDC and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, recommended disapproval.

030225:	CG, Training and Education Command forwarded Applicant’s request for withdrawal of resignation, to the Secretary of the Navy via the CG, MCCDC and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, recommending denial.

030304:	CG, MCCDC forwarded Applicant’s request for withdrawal of resignation to the Secretary of the Navy via the Commandant of the Marine Corps, recommending denial.

030328:	Commandant of the Marine Corps recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA), that the Applicant’s resignation request pursuant to his pre-trial agreement be accepted, and his subsequent request to withdraw his resignation request be denied, and further recommended that Maj M_ (Applicant)’s request for resignation in lieu of further administrative processing for cause be approved with service characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Further advised, approval of this recommendation will effect the recommended action, to include denying the request to withdraw the resignation.  The separation code will be BNC1 (resignation – unacceptable conduct).

030408:	Applicant requested to the Office of the Secretary of the Navy the closing of his officer misconduct case and denial of his resignation letter, allowing his continue to serve and face any disciplinary action that may be brought against him.

031003:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) approved the Applicant’s resignation, as recommended.  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20031015 by reason of resignation (unacceptable conduct) (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

The Applicant contends that his service characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions) is inequitable because the incident that precipitated his discharge was the only misconduct in more than fourteen years of exemplary and meritorious service.  The Board recognizes the Applicant’s many years of service; however, supporting documents show that on 20020801 five charges, against the Applicant, were preferred to a General Court-Martial.  The Board reminds the Applicant that in a Pretrial Agreement dated 20021115, he agreed to plead guilty at nonjudicial punishment for violation of UCMJ, Article 133 and request a qualified resignation for which the least favorable characterization of service allowed is general (under honorable conditions).  In exchange, the convening authority agreed to withdraw and dismiss the remaining charges and specifications with prejudice and favorably endorse the resignation request.

The Applicant’s record shows that he received nonjudicial punishment on 20021115 for violation of Article 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer.  This misconduct constitutes a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized under Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial.  Whenever a Marine is involved in misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, commanders shall process the Marine for separation, and normally, the characterization of service will be under other than honorable conditions.  Clearly, the Applicant committed a serious offense; and since he received a general (under honorable conditions), it appears that his fourteen years of unblemished service were taken into account.  In view of the seriousness of the offense, the grade and position of the Applicant, the Board concluded that the discharge was equitably characterized.  Relief on this basis is denied.

While 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 Marine Corps, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent 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.  The Applicant submitted eight character references from various field grade officers (active and retired) who argue that the characterization of service is too harsh.  Further, the Applicant informs the Board that in his present position with the Transportation Security Administration, he holds a top secret clearance; received promotions, cash awards, and certificates of accomplishments; leads 650 airport screeners; and manages a $35 million travel budget and $2 million in contract services.  Notwithstanding, the Applicant is advised that his efforts need to be more encompassing to include evidence such as documented community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and perhaps, character references, which address post-service conduct.  At this time, there is not sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in his characterization of discharge.  Relief on this basis is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Chapter 4, Paragraph 4104 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F) effective 01 September 2001 until Present, RETIREMENT OR RESIGNATION. 

B.  B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 13 Dec 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 Mar 97.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

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

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

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