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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

	 	 ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00958

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050516.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant designated Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293. 

Decision

A personal appearance hearing review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060327.  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 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain as a bad conduct discharge by reason of court-martial conviction.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as submitted by the representative (Disabled American Veterans) at the time of the hearing: 

“Mr. B_ (Applicant) request the Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge due to clemency; along with his psychiatric condition he suffers from Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type; Axis I, 295.34; since military service was responsible for his Bad Conduct Discharge.  He has been in treatment continuously since military service; has been on SSI & presently on Social Security Disability for his mental illness.  He has attended school & is trying to work & be productive in society; but will remain on medication the rest of his life & receive treatment ongoing.”

Documentation

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

South Texas Blood & Tissue Center Donor Details Query, dtd July 14, 2005
Undergraduate Academic Record, St. Philip’s College, dtd March 20, 2006 (2 pages)
Medical Evaluation from D_ P. M_, M.D., dtd May 23, 2002 (3 pgs) 
Medical Evaluation from D_ P. M_, M.D., dtd March 15, 2004 (2 pgs)
Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings dtd September 19, 1988 (2pgs)
Narrative Summary Clinic Resume dtd August 15, 1988 (5pgs)
Patient Problem List/Medications
Narrative Summary dtd October 14, 1988 (3pgs)
Medical Document from Psychology Clinic, NMCCSF dtd March 30, 1988
Atypical Medication Funding Program Qualification Letter dtd April 21, 2005
MD Follow–Up documents dtd January 27, 2005 (6pgs)
Letter from Social Security Administration dtd April 20, 2005 (2pgs)
Social Security Data 
Volunteer Information Letter from B_ A. T_, Urban Missionary @ Travis Park UMC, dtd October 22, 2003
Letter from M_ P_, VR Counselor, Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Texas Rehabilitation Commission dtd October 20, 2003
Employment Reference Letter from S_ S_, dtd October 17, 2003
Employment Reference Letter from R_ D_, dtd April 22, 2005
Character Reference Letter from L_ C. W_, dtd December 13, 2003
Enrollment Letter from ST. Philip’s College dtd November 18, 2004
Unofficial Undergraduate Academic Record (4pgs)
Enrollment Letter from ST. Philip’s College dtd March 3, 2005
Unofficial Undergraduate Academic Record (5pgs)
Letter from Applicant dtd November 25, 2005
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from W_ F_, ST. Philip’s College dtd November 11, 2005
Reference Letter from L_ C. W_, dtd July 8, 2005
Letter of Recommendation from L_ F_, Assistant Professor Automotive Technology, dtd July 7, 2005
Letter of Recommendation from M_ S_, Owner, Dog Pound Automotive, dtd July 8, 2005
Letter of Recommendation from E_ F_, dtd July 7, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19870218		Date of Discharge:  19910430

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  10  18  (Does not exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  00  03  25

Time Lost During This Period (days):  

	Unauthorized absence:	None
	Confinement:			69 days

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  8 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  27

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*		Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  None.

* Not Available

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

870612:	Commenced active duty for a period of 36 months under the Active Mariner program.

880206:	To pre-trial confinement.

880410:	From pre-trial confinement.

880411:	Special Court Martial 
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, (4 specifications).
	Specification 1:  Unlawfully strike AA E_ in the mouth with a closed fist, on 18 January 1988.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 2:  Unlawfully strike AA E_ by throwing a rock at him, on 17 January 1988.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 3:  Unlawfully shove AN G_’s head through a window, on 5 February 1988.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
Specification 4:  Unlawfully punch AN G_ in the face, on 5 February 1988.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
Charge II:  violation of UMCJ, Article 134, (2 specifications).
	Specification 1:  Wrongful use of provoking words toward SN D_, on 18 January 1988.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
Specification 2:  Wrongful use of provoking words toward Petty Officer B_, on 5 February 1988.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of $447.00 pay per month for 3 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
	CA 891207:  The sentence is approved and, for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, will be executed, but the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 60 days is suspended for the period of confinement and one year thereafter at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the suspended part of the sentence will be remitted without further action.
	
880412:	Joined Navy Brig, Naval Station, Treasure Island, San Francisco, California, for confinement.

880415:	From confinement, restored to full duty.

880717:	SJA recommendation:  SJA recommends the Convening Authority take no action with regard to the findings and that sentence be approved as adjudged.  Recommend suspension of that portion of the sentence to confinement in excess of 60 days for the period of confinement and one year thereafter.  Further recommend that with the exception of the Bad Conduct Discharge, the sentence adjudged be executed.

880719:	Applicant respectfully requests the Convening Authority disapprove the bad conduct discharge.  Applicant cites, in part, MAJ D_’s opinion that the Applicant has paranoid characteristics and perhaps other mental conditions that may have played a role in his violent behavior at NAS Lemoore.

880809:	Report of Psychological Evaluation, MAJ D_ P. D_, M.D., MC, USA:  This is a 19 year old black male, active duty Navy E-2, who is awaiting a Bad Conduct Discharge for assaultive behaviors.  He was initially seen by the on-call psychiatrist at the Darnall Army Community Hospital Emergency Room, following self injury (multiple cuts from smashing his truck windshield) and family concern/fear about increasingly violent, erratic, behaviors that appeared unprovoked.  Contact with the patient’s attorney was established and suspended action on the BCD was recommended based upon the probable association between the patient’s medical disorder and the history of the assault.
	Axis I:  298.90 though Disorder, NOS
		Rule Out 295.30 Schizophrenia, paranoid type
		314.01 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, by history
		312.30 Impulse Control Disorder, NOS
	Axis II:  Deferred
		Rule Out 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder
		Rule Out 301.90 Personality Disorder, NOS (Antisocial, Paranoid)

880815:	Medical Evaluation Board:  This 19 year old single black male with 14 months of active service, first came to psychiatric attention in June 1988, following self-injury when he completely knocked out his truck windshield with his right arm.  He was evaluated by psychiatry at Darnall Army Community Hospital, and felt to be somewhat depressed- admitted to paranoid thinking and possible auditory hallucinations.  These findings along with a history of childhood onset, attention deficit-disorder with hyperactivity, and the two episodes of assaultive behaviorfor which he had received UCMJ action, prompted a trial of low dose Melaril and Catapress for impulse control.   

	Diagnosis:  AXIS I:  295.31 Schizophrenia, paranoid type, subchronic, severe, treated and minimally improved.  Manifested by auditory hallucinations, flat affect, thought insertion, and bizarre self-mutilatory behavior.
	AXIS II:  301.90 Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified with avoidant and schizoid traits.
	Axis III:  No diagnosis.

	Recommendations:  It is the opinion of the medical board that the patient is unfit for further military service as a result of physical disabilities that did not exist prior to entry into the service.  The medical board recommends that the sailor’s case be referred to the Central U.S. Navy Physical Evaluation Board per US Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-31.  It should be noted that patient, judged to be competent for pay purposes.

880923:	Applicant’s request for R.C.M. 706 board:  Applicant suffers from what appears to be a severe mental disease, Paranoid Schizophrenia, DSMIIIR:  295.31.  This report is unclear as to when this disease began, however it is possible that it caused him to commit the assaults of which he was convicted.  It is possible that this disease either relieves SNM from criminal responsibility for his crimes he was convicted of on 11 April 1988, or rendered him unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him on that date.  Applicant respectfully requests that the Convening Authority order a R.C.M. 706 Board be convened for the purposes of answering the following questions:
a)	At the time of the alleged criminal conduct (January-February 1988) did AA B_ (Applicant) have a severe mental disease or defect?
b)	What is the clinical psychiatric diagnosis?
c)	Was AA B_, at the time of the alleged criminal conduct and as a result of such severe mental disease or defect, unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his conduct.
d)	Did the accused have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and to cooperate intelligently in his defense.  

Undated:	Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron ONE ONE THREE, requested the Applicant be examined by a Medical Board to inquire into his mental capacity and responsibility.

881014:	Narrative Summary, Admitted 880919:  This 19 year old, AA, USN, with 1 year 3months of active service, was accepted in transfer from Letterman Army Medical Center where in turn he had been accepted in air medical evacuation on 15 August 1988 in transfer from Darnall Army Community Hospital, Fort Hood, Texas.  While home on appellate leave, the Applicant became increasingly upset and was seen in psychiatric consultation at the Mental Health Clinic, Darnall Army Community Hospital.  His initial appearance there was a result of a self-injury when he broke out his truck windshield.  He was hospitalized at the facility after outpatient management was found to be ineffective.  For unclear reasons he was then transferred to Letterman Army Medical Center.  Psychological testing there was consistent with the report of auditory hallucinations and thus a diagnosis of paranoid type schizophrenia, subchronic was established.  A medical board report was prepared at Letterman Army Medical Center and the patient transferred to this facility for further treatment and disposition through naval channels.

	Course and Treatment:  It is to be noted that the patient’s history of auditory hallucinations beginning in recruit training and carrying through the episodes which led to his ultimate court-martial appears to be self-serving.  Prior to entry into confinement on 05 February 1988, psychiatric interview revealed no evidence of mental disorder and the patient was considered psychiatrically fit for confinement.  Upon release from confinement, he again received a psychological assessment on 30 March 1988 , at which time again no evidence of major mental disorder was found and he was afforded a diagnosis of personality disorder.  He was declared fit for duty, no psychiatric contraindications for the same.  

Discharge Diagnosis:  1.  Schizophreniform Disorder, DNEPTE, Treated, Improved,  2.  Photosensitivity Dermatitis, Treated, Resolved, 3.  Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, EPTE

Disposition:  Discharged to Duty, TPU Treasure Island for processing through PSD to return home on appellate leave.

881017:	R.C.M. 706 Board:  On the basis of the observations made regarding the Applicant’s hospitalization at this facility, which began on 19 September 1988, and the personal interview, the Board made the following determinations:  
(a)	At the present time does the subject service member have a severe mental disease or defect?  Answer:  Yes.
(b)	What is the clinical diagnosis?  Answer:  Schizophreniform Disorder.
(c)	Is the service member at the present time and as a result of such severe mental disease or defect unable to understand and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the post-trial proceedings of his case?  Answer:  No.

890123:	Supplemental SJA recommendation:  SJA recommendation remains the same.  In view of the results of the R.C.M. 706 board, AA B_ (Applicant was mentally responsible for his criminal activity, had the capacity to assist in his defense at trial, ad possesses sufficient capacity at this time to participate in his defense.  

890126:	Applicant’s second request for R.C.M. 706 board:  Applicant requested a R.C.M. 706 board be convened for the purpose of addressing Applicant’s mental responsibility for the offenses of which he was convicted.  The R.C.M. 706 board that was directed did not address this issue at all.  Applicant renewed his request for a R.C.M. 706 board.

890202:	Second supplemental SJA recommendation:  SJA recommendation remains the same.  Since DR. R_ does not state that as a result of a severe mental disease or defect that the Applicant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts, the material submitted by the Applicant fails to raise the issue of mental responsibility.

890307:	Darnall Army Community Hospital, MAJ D_ P. D_, M.D., MC, USA:  This is the Applicant’s 7th psychiatric hospitalization, with tow prior DACH admissions.  The purpose of this admission will be to evaluate and treat intensified symptoms of a paranoid thought disorder following conflicts with his mother, medications non-compliance, decreased personal hygiene, and increased self-isolation, living in unsanitary, unheated environment in trash in a shack.
	
Mental Status Examination:  At the time of pickup by police, he was described as an angry, agitated, black male who required physical restraint by 5 police.  Speech was loud, with frequent use of epithets, but otherwise linear and focused on not wanting to be admitted to the hospital.  Behavior was hostile and aggressive, with initial attempts at flight, and subsequent spitting at the police who restrained him.  Once calmed he was able to endorse continuing auditory hallucinations that tell him to be violent, and delusional beliefs that he is evil and that his mind is being controlled.  He denied suicidal or homicidal ideations.  Thought processes were intact with tight associations.  Thought content was remarkable for anger with his mother.  Cognitive functions were intact with adequate memory function.  Proverb interpretation was concrete.  The patient demonstrates poor insight into the circumstances of (or his responsibility for) admission.  Judgment is severely impaired by attention to auditory hallucinations, continued problems with poor impulse control, lack of compliance with medications, and continued paranoid defenses that limit trust in the home or work environment.

Final Diagnosis:  AXIS I:  295.34 Schizophrenia, paranoid type, with acute exacerbation, 314.01 Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, chronic form, AXIS II 301.90 Personality Disorder, NOS (avoidant, paranoid), AXIS III: No diagnosis.

Recommendations:  1.  Pending disposition of USN appeal of BCD, this Navy airman is felt to be severely impaired by a thought disorder and is unable to effectively establish independent living or to work at the present time.  This disorder developed in the context of active military service, and the behaviors for which he received UCMJ are felt to have been secondary to the undiagnosed thought disorder.

891207:	CA Action:  The sentence is approved and, for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, will be executed, but the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 60 days is suspended for the period of confinement and one year thereafter at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the suspended part of the sentence will be remitted without further action.

900227:	Discharge Summary, VAMC, Waco, TX, admitted 890913:  
	Diagnosis:  1.  Schizophrenia, paranoid, chronic, with acute exacerbation, 2.  Tenia versacolor on chest and back, 3.  Extrapyramidal syndrome, secondary to hallaperdol, 4.  Pediculosis pubis, subsided.
	Arrangements in progress for domiciliary placement were made; however, he was not accepted by the domiciliary board and he will be discharged to the community.  He remained clinically stable during his stay here in 11B.  He is competent to handle his own VA affairs.  He can resume pre-hospitalization activities.  

900423:	Affidavit of Dr. D. C. M_, M.D., psychiatrist at the Department of Veteran Affairs:  Diagnosis of schizophrenic, paranoid, chronic, with acute exacerbation.  The patient stated that he stopped taking his medications and did not keep his appointment at Medical Hygiene Clinic.  He was hearing voices, not sleeping well, people talked about him and are against him.  At the time of his discharge, his condition was stabilized and his prognosis is guarded.  He is competent to handle his funds.

900430:	Naval Hospital Portsmouth, VA:  Admission Diagnosis:  Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type Chronic.  This was the first Portsmouth Naval Hospital psychiatric hospitalization and the tenth overall psychiatric hospitalization for this 21 year old single black male.  He reported his symptoms began in the Spring of 1988 with command hallucinations of violence, ideas of reference that the television was speaking to him, paranoia, and disorganized and bizarre behavior.  
	
	Diagnosis:  AXIS I:  Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, Chronic, in remission, 295.92, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, by history, 314.01, Axis II:  No diagnosis, Axis III:  No diagnosis.

	Recommendations:  At the time of discharge, the member was considered competent to manage his personal, legal, and financial affairs.  He also was considered competent to seek psychiatric care if symptoms recurred.

900511:	Affidavit of R_ R. R_, M.D., Director of Psychiatry, Scott and White Clinic at Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Temple, Texas:  Following our examination and evaluation at Scott and White we confirmed the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia which had been previously made by the Navy psychiatrist.  D_ B_ (Applicant) began having auditory hallucinations in December of 1987 wherein he heard voices commanding him to commit violent acts.  This resulted in his committing violent acts.  He had other ideas of reference, feeling that other people were looking at him and that the TV was staring directly at him.  In my opinion there is no question that the two fights in which he engage were a result of his delusional system.  He responded well to the Thorazine which had been prescribed, and as a result, he was much better adjusted.  

	While undergoing examination at Scott and White, D_ B_ was given psychometric tests which substantiated my clinical impression of paranoid schizophrenia.  The voices were still bothering him; he resisted taking the medication; and I anticipated at that time future problems regarding his management.  

	It is my opinion that this man’s acts of violence resulted from his mental illness rather than from misconduct.  It is my opinion that he was a classic case of paranoid schizophrenia and that long term management of his illness would be necessary.

900607:	Sworn Witness Statement from CPT R_ W_ M_, MC, USA, USA MEDDAC, FT. Hood, TX, Dept. of Psychiatry:  Applicant is diagnosed as having Schizophrenia, paranoid type, chronic.  This diagnosis represents a severe mental illness with a poor prognosis, which has caused and continues to cause SN B_ (Applicant) considerable difficulty with his thinking and reasoning.  SN B_’s psychotic symptoms began when he has been on active duty in the Navy for approximately nine months in April, 1988.  At that time, he began to hear voices which commanded him to commit acts of violence toward others.  These hallucinations occurred in the context of a paranoid delusional system focused on the idea that others were planning to harm the subject.  He also had ideas of reference, that the television newscasts were talking to and about him.  SN B_ experienced a psychotic decompensation in June, 1988.  He was med-evacked to Letterman Army Medical Center which confirmed the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  The sailor was then transferred to the Oakland Naval Hospital where he was diagnosed as having simply a non-psychotic conduct disorder and returned him home on appellate leave.  On 13 April 1990, he became acutely paranoid of his mother’s boyfriend, and claimed he had heard voices stating that the boyfriend was going to hurt him.  It is clear from reviewing records from several independent sources that there is no dispute among the various physicians who have treated B_ with regard to his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  There also is general agreement that his symptoms have initially manifested in the time frame between February and April, 1988.  Therefore, it can safely be concluded that he was suffering from his psychotic illness at the time he committed the offenses which led to his being placed on appellate leave for a bad conduct discharge from the Navy.

900626:	Applicant filed petition with NMCCMR for a new trial.

901231:	NMCCMR:  Applicant’s petition for a new trial denied.

910315:	NMCCMR:  Applicant’s motion to withdraw granted.

910430:	SSPCMO:  Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

960528:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND96-00014 conducted.  Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19910430 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.  That sentence was subsequently approved by both the convening and appellate review authorities (A and B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C).

Relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The Applicant was convicted at special court-martial of four violations of UCMJ Article 128, assault and two violations of Article 134, provoking speech and gestures.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy.  After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined, by a 3 to 2 vote, that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that mental illness was the underlying cause of his misconduct while on active duty.  In support of his contention, the Applicant has submitted, and the record contains, a substantial amount of evidence confirming that the Applicant was diagnosed with a variety of mental disorders, including personality disorder and shizophreniform disorder, while on active duty.  The Applicant’s submissions to this Board also support the contention that his mental illness has persisted post service and continues to affect him to the present time.  Although the NDRB does not dispute the Applicant’s mental illness, the Board found that such mental illness was insufficient to mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  Specifically, the evidence of record indicates that the Applicant was examined by a Rule for Court-Martial 706 mental competency board and specifically found to be competent and responsible for his actions.  Furthermore, the Applicant was never diagnosed with mental illness prior to his misconduct, leaving open the question as to when the Applicant’s symptoms actually manifested.  Such facts, coupled with the serious nature of the Applicant’s multiple assaults and threatening speech, lead to the conclusion that relief would be inappropriate.  As such, the NDRB concluded by a 3-2 vote that clemency was not warranted.  Relief denied.

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 Naval service.  The NDRB 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.  Examples of documentation that could be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including his medical evaluations, character reference letters, employment reference letters, college transcripts, and volunteer activities.  After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  The Applicant has exhausted his opportunities for review by the NDRB.  The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 9, effective 14 Dec 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT‑MARTIAL.

B.  The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, assault.

C.   Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 205(2), Jurisdictional Limitations Authority for Review of Discharges.

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