ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160624
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE 
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	               	Active:	  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20000808	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20031219	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   12 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  88

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.4 (8)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.3 (8)     
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  SSDR NDSM PUC CAR

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

NJP:  

- 20020722:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)  
	Article 134 (General article) Underage consumption of alcohol 
	Awarded:      Suspended:    

- 20031028:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) Failed to prevent two junior Marines from using methamphetamines and marijuana, as it was his duty to do. 
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)  2 specifications	  
	Awarded:       Suspended:    

SCM:  		SPCM:  	CIVIL ARREST:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20031023:	For counseling concerning Applicant’s admitted illegal drug involvement, methamphetamines and marijuana usage identified through his statement to CID.  The Applicant was informed of a notice of administrative separation due to an admission of illegal drug use to CID.

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:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant requests a change to the character of his service contending that he did not receive a post-deployment health examination to assess and treat his combat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as was statutorily required by 10 U.S.C. §1074(f) and because the Secretary of Defense failed to protect his health, safety, and legal rights by not implementing such mandatory safeguards, there exists errors in fact, law, procedure, and discretion associated with his discharge and his rights were prejudiced  thereby; substantial doubt exists that his discharge would have occurred had his right to medical care not been prejudiced.
2.	The Applicant contends that he was interrogated without warning or assistance of counsel and coerced under duress into signing an involuntary confession in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 10 U.S.C §831, R.C. M. 303, and Mil. R. Evid. 301, 304, 305 and because his chain-of-command ordered his interrogation and then relied solely on his coerced confession of drug use, as its only evidence to NJP and administratively separated him, there exists errors in fact, law, procedure, and discretion associated with his discharge and his rights were prejudiced  thereby; substantial doubt exists that his discharge would have occurred had his right against compulsory self-incrimination not been violated.
3.	The Applicant contends that he was nonjudicially punished for violating purely military offenses over which courts-Martial have exclusive jurisdiction and by erroneously charging him procedurally under 10 U.S.C. §815 and with Administrative Separation, his rights under federal law were violated.
4.	The Applicant contends that the procedures used to administratively separate him violated the Manual for Courts-Martial and unconstitutionally deprived him of liberty and property interests in violation of his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and that he was denied the opportunity of an impartial hearing before being deprived of substantial liberty and property interests. 
5.	The Applicant contends that propriety requires a change to his discharge to Honorable because the policy, OSD009883-14 (20140914) that requires liberal consideration of requests that assert undiagnosed PTSD at the time of discharge, applies to him.
6.	The Applicant contends that a number of current policies and procedures represent significant enhancements to servicemember protections, and there is substantial doubt that he would have received the same discharge had these and other safeguards been available to him at the time of discharge.
7.	The Applicant contends that relief is warranted due to the quality of his service, which is shown in his awards and decorations, his distinguished combat service, his records of promotion, and the levels of responsibility that he was tasked with.
8.	The Applicant contends that relief is warranted due to extenuating and mitigating circumstances that affected his ability to serve at the time of his discharge to include suffering from PTSD and compounded by serious family issues.
9.	The Applicant contends that relief is warranted because his post-service conduct demonstrates the high quality of his performance and conduct during the period of his enlistment. 

Discussion

Date:   20161129		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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.   

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD or TBI, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), and Memorandum, The Secretary of Defense, to Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (3 Sep. 2014), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.

The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment in 2003 to Iraq with and end date of 05 September 2003 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 2 specifications
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 2 specifications
	Article 134 (General article)

Based on the  committed by the Applicant, the command administratively processed the Applicant for separation. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.  When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant  their rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an Administrative Separation Board.   However, a HKK1 found in the Applicant’s DD Form 293 indicates that the Administrative Separation Board was waived. 

Issue 1:  The Applicant requests a change to the character of his service contending that he did not receive a post-deployment health examination to assess and treat his combat PTSD as was statutorily required and because the Secretary of Defense failed to protect his health, safety, and legal rights by not implementing such mandatory safeguards, there exists errors in fact, law, procedure, and discretion associated with his discharge and his rights were prejudiced;  thereby, substantial doubt exists that his discharge would have occurred had his right to medical care not been prejudiced.

The Applicant filled out a Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA), DD Form 2796 on 12 August 2003.  As stated on the PDHA, its principal purpose is “to assess your state of health after deployment outside the United States in support of military operations and to assist military healthcare providers in identifying and providing present and future medical care to you.”  The Applicant states he was not given a post-deployment health examination.  Follow-on examinations and referrals are given based on the responses provided on the PDHA.  

     In terms of questions related to mental health concerns, the Applicant answered “yes” to the following:
-	Did you see anyone wounded, killed or dead during this deployment?  
o	Yes to coalition, enemy and civilian
-	Were you engaged in direct combat where you discharged your weapon? 
o	Yes
-	During this deployment, did you ever feel that you were in great danger of being killed?
o	Yes
-	Over the LAST TWO WEEKS, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems? 
o	 The Applicant answered “A Lot” to “little interest or pleasure in doing things” and “Some” to ‘feeling down, depressed or hopeless.’
-	Have you ever had any experience that was so frightening, horrible, or upsetting that IN THE PAST MONTH you…  
o	The Applicant answered “Yes” to “Have you had any nightmares about it or thought about it when you did not want to? “ 
o	The Applicant answered “Yes” to  “Were you constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled?”

     In terms of questions related to mental health concerns, the Applicant answered “no” to the following:
-	Are you currently interested in receiving help for a stress, emotional, alcohol, or family problem?
o	No
-	Over the LAST TWO WEEKS, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?  
o	The Applicant answered “None” to “Have thoughts that you would be better off dead or hurting yourself in any way.”
-	Have you ever had any experience that was so frightening, horrible, or upsetting that IN THE PAST MONTH you…  
o	The Applicant answered “No” to “Tried hard not to think about it or went out of your way to avoid situations that remind you of it?” 
o	The Applicant answered “No” to  “Felt numb or detached from others, activities, or your surroundings?”

-	Are you having thoughts or concerns that…  
o	The Applicant answered “No” to “You may have serious conflicts with your spouse, family members or close friends?” 
o	The Applicant answered “No” to “You might hurt or lose control with someone?”
-	During this deployment have you sought, or do you now intend to seek, counseling or care for your mental health?
o	No
-	Do you have concerns about possible exposures or events during this deployment that you feel may affect your health?
o	No
-	Do you currently have any questions or concerns about your health?
o	No

The questions that the Applicant answered “no” indicate that he did not have any concerns nor did he desire any help in regards to his mental health.       

The PDHA shows that an interview with the Applicant took place on 15 August 2003.  Under the section “Health Assessment,” it states, “After my interview/exam of the service member and review of this form, there was a need for further evaluations as indicated below” that was followed by different types of referrals.  For the Applicant’s PDHA, in this section under “Referral Indicated For,” “None” was marked among various items that included “Combat/Stress Reaction,” “Family Problems,” and “Mental Health.”  The Applicant stated that this was fraudulently certified.  

In addition to the PDHA, the Applicant was given a separation medical examination on and found to be physically qualified for separation on 29 October 2003, around eight weeks after completing his combat tour in Iraq.  He signed the Health Record which included a statement, “If you feel you have a serious defect or condition that interferes or has interfered with the performance of your duties, advise the examiner.”  There is no evidence that the Applicant advised/notified the examiner or other Health Care provider of any medical concerns.  

Both on the PDHA and on his separation physical, when given an opportunity to request help for mental health or other medical issues, the Applicant made the decision to decline any help that could have been provided.  If mental health was a concern for the Applicant, he had multiple opportunities post-deployment while in the Marine Corps to seek help.  There are no indications in his record that he chose to do so.  The record shows the Applicant was physically qualified for separation based on the results of his separation medical exam.

Issues 2-4:  The Applicant contends that he was interrogated without warning or assistance of counsel and coerced under duress into signing an involuntary confession in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 10 U.S.C §831, R.C. M. 303, and Mil. R. Evid. 301, 304, 305 and because his chain-of-command ordered his interrogation and then relied solely on his coerced confession of drug use, as its only evidence to NJP and administratively separated him, there exists errors in fact, law, procedure, and discretion associated with his discharge and his rights were prejudiced thereby; substantial doubt exists that his discharge would have occurred had his right against compulsory self-incrimination not been violated.  In addition, the Applicant contends that he was nonjudicially punished for violating purely military offenses over which courts-Martial have exclusive jurisdiction and by erroneously charging him procedurally under 10 U.S.C. §815 and with Administrative Separation, his rights under federal law were violated.  The Applicant also contends that the procedures used to administratively separate him violated the Manual for Courts-Martial and unconstitutionally deprived him of liberty and property interests in violation of his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and that he was denied the opportunity of an impartial hearing before being deprived of substantial liberty and property interests.

Besides the Applicant’s sworn statement on 07 October 2003 admitting to his use of methamphetamine, the record shows that the Applicant admitted to drug use to his Commanding Officer (CO) stating that it was a “snap decision” (extracted from CO’s letter to CO, 3d Battalion 7th Marines, 27 October 2003) and to his letter to Major General M_ (no date).  In the letter to Major General M_, the Applicant states, “I know the mistake I made was a bad one, and that the judgment I used was reckless and irresponsible. In this letter, the Applicant also stated, “I hope that although I made a stupid and costly decision, the achievements throughout my short career are not forgotten.”  The Applicant also admitted in his statements to the NDRB that he used marijuana.  The record also shows the Applicant’s illicit drug use was initially brought to the Command’s attention because of an investigation of another Marine; a basis of evidence completely separate from the Applicant’s statement(s). 

The Applicant contends that his signed confession was coerced under duress.  He was given the opportunity to meet with counsel and to request a court-martial prior to his NJP, but waived these rights under Article 31, UCMJ.  The Applicant states that this opportunity to exercise his rights under Article 31 was granted long after his “coerced confession” had been obtained and used as evidence against him.  If the Applicant felt that his confession was coerced and would be used against him at NJP, it was his obligation to contest this.  He had the opportunity to dispute his confession with aid from counsel at a court-martial, but chose not to do so and to go to NJP instead.  In addition, when provided notification of separation proceedings, the Applicant waived his right to counsel, to submit a written statement in rebuttal to the proposed separation, and to request an Administrative Separation Board.  During a trial or administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges.  The Applicant had multiple opportunities to contest his charges with aid of counsel, but chose not to use these opportunities.     

Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification.  Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps.  A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted.  

Issues 5-6:  The Applicant contends that propriety requires a change to his discharge to Honorable because the policy, OSD009883-14 (20140914) that requires liberal consideration of requests that assert undiagnosed PTSD at the time of discharge, applies to him.  The Applicant also contends that a number of current policies and procedures represent significant enhancements to servicemember protections, and there is substantial doubt that he would have received the same discharge had these and other safeguards been available to him at the time of discharge.

The Applicant’s misconduct- drug use has been documented in his service record based on his sworn statement (extracted from CO letter to Applicant, 30 October 2003), his letter to Major General M_ (no date), and his CO’s letter to CO, 3d Battalion 7th Marines, 27 October 2003.  In his letter to Major General M_, the Applicant states, “I know the mistake I made was a bad one, and that the judgment I used was reckless and irresponsible.  I hope that although I made a stupid and costly decision, the achievements throughout my short career are not forgotten.”  His CO wrote that the Applicant stated that his drug use was a “snap decision.”  At no time when discussing his drug use, did the Applicant state that he used illegal drugs due to mental health.  As previously stated, in his PDHA and separation medical exam the Applicant did not ask for help or address any concerns regarding his mental health.  The Applicant has not provided any evidence that PTSD was a mitigating factor for his illegal drug use at a Motel 6 on 16 September 2003 or his failure to prevent two junior Marines from using illegal drugs. 

Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the PTSD was a mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  Use of illegal drugs and failure to prevent two junior Marines from using illegal drugs were all conscious decisions to violate the tenants of honorable and faithful service.   

Issue 7:  The Applicant contends that relief is warranted due to the quality of his service, which is shown in his awards and decorations, his distinguished combat service, his records of promotion, and the levels of responsibility that he was tasked with.  The Applicant was administratively separated; not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  The Applicant has not provided any evidence that PTSD was a mitigating factor for his misconduct.  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service.    Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Marine Corps and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  

Issue 8:  The Applicant contends that relief is warranted due to extenuating and mitigating circumstances that affected his ability to serve at the time of his discharge to include suffering from PTSD and compounded by serious family issues.  As previously stated, the NDRB has determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  Use of illegal drugs and failure to prevent two junior Marines from using illegal drugs were all conscious decisions to violate the tenants of honorable and faithful service.  In terms of the Applicant’s family issues, his command did provide support by being able to take leave several days before the squadron.  The Applicant stated that he was not offered counseling, but did not state that he requested counseling and that it was denied.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation to indicate that his family issues were mitigating factors for his use of illegal drugs, therefore, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s personal problems were not mitigating factors in his misconduct.   

Issue 9:  The Applicant contends that relief is warranted because his post-service conduct demonstrates the high quality of his performance and conduct during the period of his enlistment.  The NDRB considers outstanding post-service conduct, but an upgrade is not authorized solely on such conduct.  It is one factor to consider.  Post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review. The Applicant provided documentation that he is a licensed attorney and college business law professor.  The Board determined that the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.    

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found  at the time of discharge. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  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

Complaint Procedures: If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at http://boards.law.af.mil/.  More information is available at http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx.

Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance or telephonic hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before 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.

Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

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: Effective 6 February 2015, 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.

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  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.