Title: NDRB Decisional Document
Author: robert.c.powers
Last saved by: Bata, Charles T PO2 USN (USA)
Company: NDRB

Docket No. MD22-636

ex- LCpl, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220828
Characterization of Service Received:  (per DD 214) UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  (per DD 214) MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:  (per DD 214) MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	GENERAL/UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	NONE 	             	Active:	20040810 - 20080725  HON USMC

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20080726	Age at Enlistment:  22
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years  11 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20111216	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  04  Month(s)  21  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  42
Deployment/Operation: NOT AVAILABLE

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.5 (1)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.1 (1)   
Fitness Reports: AVAILABLE

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle EX Pistol EX GCM NMCAM SSDR GWOTSM NDSM LoC 

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:  NONE  SPCM:  NONE  CIVIL ARREST:  NONE CC:  NONE 

NJP:  2

- 20110216:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) (2 Specicifications)
	Awarded: FOP RIR   Suspended:   RIR (Vacated 20110602)

- 20110722:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Awarded: RIR RESTR EPD FOP  Suspended:  NONE    

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20081014:	For poor professional judgment and failing to set the example when cited for excessive speed driving a motor vehicle.  

- 20110216:	For violation of article 92 and associated misconduct of 20110216 NJP. 

- 20110722:	For violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ and failure to be at the Platoon accountability formation.   

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20151203
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD15-01433
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:	☒	Service/Medical Record:	☒	Other Records:	☐
	Employment:	☐	Finances:	☐	Education/Training:	☐
	Health/Medical Records:	☐	Rehabilitation/Treatment:	☐	Criminal Records:	☐
	Personal Documentation:	☐	Community Service:	☐	References:	☐
	Department of VA letter:	☐	Other Documentation:	☐

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:	☒	From/To Representation:	☐	From/To Congress member:	☐

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 26 November 2013.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that the misconduct that led to his administrative separation and assigned discharge characterization is mitigated by PTSD and a Traumatic Brain Injury he incurred while serving on active duty.
Discussion

Date:  20230109	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  NONE

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

Three Retention Warning Counselings

Two Nonjudicial Punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)

Issue 1:  	The Applicant contends that the misconduct that led to his administrative separation and assigned discharge characterization is mitigated by PTSD and a Traumatic Brain Injury he incurred while serving on active duty.  

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION

1.

Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?

Yes – Alcohol Use Disorder, TBI, Anxiety Disorder (military);
Alcohol Use Disorder, PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, TBI (VA)

2. | A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct? | Yes
| B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct? | Yes (see below)
3. | Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant? | Yes

4.

Medical board member comments:

Reviewed the Applicant’s military treatment and service records, VA records, and applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant contends mental health conditions mitigate the misconduct.

2006 – Deployment to the Philippines
2007 – Deployment to South Korea
26 Jul 2008 – Re-enlistment (re-enlistment physical negative for PTSD symptoms)
Dec 2010 - Jan 2011 – Inpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation
16 Feb 2011 – NJP (Art 92 x 2) – discharging an unregistered firearm on 6 Dec 2010
22 Jul 2011 – NJP (Art 92 x 2) – UA/late to formation
4 Nov 2011 – ASB (3-0 separation, OTH, no suspension/IRR)
16 Dec 2011 – Discharge

*** Undated investigation of child abuse/domestic/cohabitation (possibly around the time of another accidental discharge of a firearm while intoxicated ~ Aug 2010)

The Applicant, a combat-experienced Marine, was discharged from the Marine Corps in 2011 based on a pattern of misconduct.  Prior to his separation, the Applicant had a string of alcohol-related incidents, culminating in an unregistered discharge of a firearm through his car window, a possible command investigation for child abuse, and unauthorized absences from command formations.  Following the second NJP, the Applicant was referred to mental health and was diagnosed with anxiety and mild TBI.  

The Applicant raised no formal mental health issues in his application.  Reviewing the case generally under liberal consideration guidelines, I conclude the following:

1.	I was unable to associate the Applicant’s alcohol dependence to any form of self-treatment for PTSD or other mental health conditions.  I appears most of the alcohol use surrounded marital strife and occupational difficulties, though some impact may have come from the Applicant’s TBI.
2.	Two notes by a neuropsychologist opined the Applicant suffered moderate-severe TBI as a cumulative effect from multiple prior mild TBIs.  Further, the doctor felt that the TBI caused significant insomnia and other psychological issues.
3.	PTSD – I was unable to find significant information on PTSD in the active duty treatment records.  Per the VA records, the Applicant contends that the death of his father and traumatic images from the Philippines caused his symptoms.  I have no further information relating the PTSD to the Applicant’s misconduct.

Based on the Applicant’s TBI, I find it as-likely-as-not that at least some of the Applicant’s misconduct may have been due to his service-connected TBI.

The Applicant contends that the misconduct that contributed to his administrative separation and assigned discharge characterization is mitigated by mental health challenges he suffers from that includes PTSD and a TBI.  The Applicant states that his PTSD stems from a deployment to the Philippines when he was exposed to dead bodies during a humanitarian/disaster response mission.  In addition, the Applicant’s medical record substantiates that he was diagnosed with a TBI, although the specific source was not identified during the review of the record. Stating that he suffered from issues that impacted his judgment, self-perception and temperament, the Applicant seeks mitigation to the behavior that led to his administrative separation as his personal circumstances caused him to act out in capacities not consistent with standards of conduct. 

The Applicant’s record substantiates misconduct that includes a violation of Article 92 and another incident that demonstrated unreliability when he missed a platoon formation following a holiday weekend. In evaluation of the regulations violation when the Applicant was charged for possessing and improperly discharging a weapon on a military installation, the NDRB noted the in-patient mental health and alcohol rehabilitation period that followed this misconduct. Medical records reflect that the Applicant’s behavior was influenced by the abuse of alcohol and a mental crisis he experienced. Afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate and recover, the Applicant’s unauthorized absence from a platoon accountability formation led his leadership to process him for a pattern of misconduct. The record reflects that the command’s actions were substantiated by the two documented acts of misconduct in addition to disciplinary counselling. Thus while the command’s actions did not reflect impropriety, the NDRB did find a nexus to the Applicant’s mental health and the behavior that led to his administrative separation hearing. Records show that the Applicant was suffering from a TBI to which his efforts to self-medicate can be associated. Given all circumstances pertaining to the Applicant’s situation the NDRB did find grounds for mitigation and relief in the form of an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Given the accomplishments and recognized achievements attained during this period of service, the Applicant’s deviations from standards of conduct reflect influence from conditions that the Applicant could not control. 

Further, when reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In accordance with the above, the Board found the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Thus, weighing (using the scales of liberal consideration) the Applicant’s overall performance and conduct against the standards for characterization of service, the Board held that the Applicant’s mental health issues mitigated but did not completely exonerate his misconduct and that a change in the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was appropriate.  

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of GKA1, and the reentry code shall remain RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Additional NDRB Reviews: After receiving a NDRB Document Review, an Applicant remains eligible for a Personal Appearance/Telephonic Hearing if the application is received by the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claim(s) related to their discharge as well as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing by an Attorney (or Advocate) is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  However, if you have been discharged for more than 15 years, already had a personal appearance hearing, or otherwise exhausted your opportunity to be heard by the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Appeal Procedures on NDRB Decision: If you contest the NDRB’s decision in your case AND you already contested the NDRB’s previous decision at a Personal Appearance Hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunity before the NDRB (or it has been more than 15 years since your discharge), the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.  The BCNR is the highest level of administrative review within the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps to correct errors or injustices to member’s records.

Complaint Procedures on Format: If you believe the decision in your case is ambiguous, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity (JSRA), OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the DoD Instruction 1332.28 before submitting such a complaint.  This complaint procedure does not permit a challenge on the merits of the NDRB’s decision; the JSRA is designed solely to ensure that the NDRB decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  Therefore, if you are contesting the merits of the NDRB’s decision and already had a NDRB personal appearance hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may appeal/petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations.

Employment/Educational Opportunities: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & (d)(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.  If the Applicant’s claim of PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, 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 NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text 274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.

Key:	NFIR - Not found in record 	RESTR - Restriction	NJP - Nonjudicial punishment	SCM - Summary court-martial
	SPCM - Special court-martial	FOP - Forfeiture of pay	RIR - Reduction in rank	EPD - Extra duties
	CONF - Confinement	CC - Civilian conviction	CCU - Correctional Custody Unit	CBW - Confinement on bread and water

Key:	NFIR - Not Found In Record 	UA – Unauthorized absence	NJP – Nonjudicial punishment	SCM – Summary court-martial	
	SPCM – Special court-martial	FOP – Forfeiture of pay	RIR – Reduction in rank	EPD – Extra Duties 
	CONF – Confinement		B&W – Confinement on bread and water