ex- GM2, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20190702
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   PERSONALITY DISORDER
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-122 [PERSONALITY DISORDER] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: RETIREMENT
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	19990608 - 20030126  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20030127	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20040615	Highest Rank/Rate:  GM2
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  08  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  33
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.2 (4)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.5 (4)   OTA: 2.89 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  NMCAM MUC NAVY "E"(x3) GCM NDSM AFEM SSDR(x2) ESWS 

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

SCM:      SPCM:      CIVIL ARREST:      CC:  

NJP:  

- 20040527:	Article 117 (Provoking speech, gestures) 
	Article 128 (Assaults)
	Article 134 (General article)
		
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20070119
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND06-00490
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:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 19 June 2005, Article 1910-122, Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s).

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.    When a command puts a military protective order on a service member and he was never charged with Article 128b.
2.    When a command refused to allow service member a housing allowance to provide an adequate housing situation for himself and his wife who was pregnant with a child at the time. 
3.    Did the service member’s command abuse its power by not allowing him access to this command appointed legal counsel while also forcing the member to sign his discharge notice without counsel and refused member a General Court Martial Convening Authority review?
4.    Was the service member’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP) administered properly where the Commanding Officer is present to hold this administrative action or was he not present when it occurred?
5.    When a service member’s Article 31 rights are abused as he was never told what charges he was facing before he made a written statement and verbal statement to a Criminal Investigative Division Agent on a naval base, without presence of Naval Criminal Investigative Agent present.
6.    When a service member’s Article 15 rights are violated due to never being able to confront alleged victim as he was never at member’s NJP and he never submitted a victim statement concerning me.
7.    When a service member is unlawfully placed in detention before NJP.
8.    When a command is held liable for causing a service member to have a mental breakdown or when the command lies to a service member telling them that there was a military protective order for domestic violence and was not going to be lifted in an effort to portray the service member as having a personality disorder.
9.    Did my command abuse its authority when they forced service member to take a mental health evaluation?
10.  How did the service member have a mental health evaluation without being present?
11.  Medical Dr. W.’s exam at 0800 on the 24 May 2004 at Makalapa Medical Center is baseless as, service member was not released from TAMC until 1303 hours, 24 May 2004.
12.  Although the service member was never clinically diagnosed by a Navy clinical psychologist, Dr. C. as having a personality disorder, he was discharged from the Navy on the merits and credentials of M. D. Dr. W., who is not a Navy clinical psychologist. 
13.  When Dr. C. the Department Head of Mental Health Clinical Psychologists diagnosed the service member he had no official mental health diagnosis. 
14.  When a noncommissioned officer makes a “false official statement” that influenced a medical finding that resulted in a Personality Disorder diagnosis when the service member had stellar records at the time of the report. 

Discussion

Date:  20220120		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 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:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 117 (Provoking speech, gestures) 
Article 128 (Assaults)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he suffered a lot of setbacks due his chain of command’s mishandling of his family situation; specifically, when a command puts a military protective order on a service member and he was never charged with Article 128b; when a command refused to allow service member a housing allowance to provide an adequate housing situation for himself and his wife who was pregnant with a child at the time. 

The Applicant seeks an upgraded discharge characterization because he feels his family situation was mishandled by his chain of command leading to significant stress for him and his family as well as the improper imposition of a military protective order that was predicated on an unfounded allegation of spousal abuse.  To determine the merit of this issue, the Board conducted a thorough review of all the available evidence to identify what, if any, information could reasonably support the Applicant’s assertion.  After hearing the Applicant’s testimony and examining the available information the Board did not discern sufficient evidence of malice, neglect, or wrong doing on behalf of his chain of command.  The Board acknowledges the Applicant underwent hardships that were brought about by his decision to execute a permanent change of duty station (PCS) move to Hawaii while his wife remained in the continental United States to finish her schooling.  The Board did not, however, identify any instance where his chain of command was culpable for aggravating his family situation.  Relief denied on this issue.

Issues 3-8:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he feels his chain of command violated his rights; specifically: Did the service member’s command abuse its power by not allowing him access to this command appointed legal counsel while also forcing the member to sign his discharge notice without counsel and refused member a General Court Martial Convening Authority review?; Was the service member’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP) administered properly where the Commanding Officer is present to hold this administrative action or was he not present when it occurred?; When a service member’s Article 31 rights are abused as he was never told what charges he was facing before he made a written statement and verbal statement to a Criminal Investigative Division Agent on a naval base, without presence of Naval Criminal Investigative Agent present.; When a service member’s Article 15 rights are violated due to never being able to confront alleged victim as he was never at member’s NJP and he never submitted a victim statement concerning me.; When a service member is unlawfully placed in detention before NJP.; and When a command is held liable for causing a service member to have a mental breakdown or when the command lies to a service member telling them that there was a military protective order for domestic violence and was not going to be lifted in an effort to portray the service member as having a personality disorder.

The Applicant seeks an upgraded discharge characterization because he feels rights were violated by his chain of command.  Specifically, the Applicant contends his leadership neglected to inform him about charges being brought against him; denied him access to his lawyer; unlawfully detained him; prevented him from confronting his accuser; and subjected him to an improperly administered NJP where his commanding officer was not present.  The record shows the Applicant was the subject of an NJP for violation of Articles 117, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ.  The Board considered the Applicant’s testimony and conducted a thorough review of his service record paying special attention to the events leading up to and including his disciplinary proceedings.  The NDRB was able to review the Applicant’s disciplinary charge sheets and complete discharge package.  The Board did not discern any anomalies or irregularities in any of the available documents.  Additionally, the NDRB presumed regularity in governmental affairs in that the Separation Authority and Staff Judge Advocate review of the discharge package ensured that the Applicant was afforded all of his administrative rights pursuant to the separation process.  The Applicant did not submit any documentation to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs by the NDRB.  Relief denied on this issue.

Issues 9-14:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because the mental health diagnosis that prompted his separation is invalid, the result of undue command influence on his medical providers, a misdiagnosis, and was determined in his absence; specifically: Did my command abuse its authority when they forced service member to take a mental health evaluation?; How did the service member have a mental health evaluation without being present?; Medical Dr. W.’s exam at 0800 on the 24 May 2004 at Makalapa Medical Center is baseless as, service member was not released from TAMC until 1303 hours, 24 May 2004.; Although the service member was never clinically diagnosed by a Navy clinical psychologist, Dr. C. as having a personality disorder, he was discharged from the Navy on the merits and credentials of M. D. Dr. W., who is not a Navy clinical psychologist.; When Dr. C. the Department Head of Mental Health Clinical Psychologists diagnosed the service member he had no official mental health diagnosis.; and When a noncommissioned officer makes a “false official statement” that influenced a medical finding that resulted in a Personality Disorder diagnosis when the service member had stellar records at the time of the report. 

The Applicant seeks an upgraded discharge characterization because he feels his medical providers were influenced by his leadership as they made their diagnosis, his diagnosing physician was not appropriately credentialed, and he was misdiagnosed.  

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 mitigated 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 PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?	Yes – personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic traits.  Applicant contends that he suffers from PTSD related to a violent assault he endured in September 20002 and direct participation in the events following the bombing of the USS COLE in Aden Harbor, Yemen on 12 October 2000.  No supporting documentation exists of a diagnosis of PTSD in the active duty records.  The VA considered but did not support the diagnosis of PTSD in a C&P exam dated October 6th, 2018.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	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 military and VA records provided by the applicant and obtained through various channels.  The crux of this case resolves mostly around the applicant’s contention that he did not suffer from a personality disorder and that he was improperly discharged.  The applicant contends that the true cause of his mental health issues was undiagnosed PTSD.  

Specific observations:
-	Review of the shipboard notes show no visits for PTSD or related symptoms around or after the time of the USS Cole bombing in Oct 2000.  The only mental health visit was in November 2001, when the applicant was seen for depression that he stated dated back to age 15.  No mention of the Cole bombing or the personal assault were made during that visit.  
-	The applicant was married to another active duty service member on 27 May 2003.  There are indirect indications from the records that significant marital strife, in additional to occupational strife, occurred after this marriage, culminating in domestic violence charges and a military protective order.  Though the MPO isn’t found in the record, there is a fitness for duty evaluation dated the 15th of April 2004 (with mention of a follow-up visit on the 4th of May).   On the 21st of May, the applicant is again seen and placed on a 72-hour hold for active homicidal ideations (mention is made here of an alleged DV incident from the previous week, for which NCIS was called to investigate.  There’s a possibility that the MPO was placed at that time).  At a 24 May follow-up appointment, various diagnoses are given including partner-relational problem, occupational problem and Axis II diagnosis of Personality Disorder (Antisocial and Narcissistic Traits).
-	The 24 May 2004 visit is the diagnostic basis for the applicant’s administrative separation approximately one month later. 
-	The 24 May 2004 visit was conducted by Dr. Jonathan Weller, PhD, LT, MSC, USNR (a Naval officer).
-	As the applicant notes, there is a discrepancy between the time of his discharge from inpatient psychiatry at Tripler Army Medical Center on 24 May 2004 (1303) and his outpatient follow-up visit at the Makalapa Branch Medical Clinic on 24 May 2004 (0800).  According to the discharge summary, a follow-up appointment had been made at the Makalapa MH Clinic for the 25th of May 2004 at 0730.  However, Dr. W. documents a very specific mental status exam, however, indicated the applicant was present.  Assuming government regularity and professional competence, the applicant was likely at the appointment. 
-	On the 27th of May, the applicant is taken to CO’s Mast for 3 violations of the UCMJ that had occurred in early April and involved a civilian law enforcement officer.

Opinion:
1.	Naval Medicine no longer assigns personality disorder but uses a contemporary diagnosis of condition not a disability (CND) with a corresponding separation code of JFV.
2.	The diagnosis of personality disorder made on 24 May 2003 was made by a Navy psychiatrist and was valid for use in the separation of the applicant.  Based on the totality of the medical appointments and statements made by the applicant, I believe this diagnosis was proper.  
3.	Personality disorders, by definition, are lifelong.  For the applicant, this is evidenced in the medical record, which shows the applicant to have had violent altercations (including gang-related activity) extending back well before his enlistment in the USN.  Violent behavior extended into his enlistment and, as evidenced in the VA record, has continued post-discharge.
4.	As with the VA, I don’t find sufficient evidence of the existence of undiagnosed PTSD.  However, if the applicant desires to pursue PTSD or a medical discharge further, he can appeal to the Board for the Correction of Naval Records.  
5.	Though I do not find grounds for mitigation based on PTSD, I believe the applicant is entitled to have the characterization of his service based on the totality of his record.  	

The record shows the Applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with a personality disorder with anti-social and narcissistic traits.  The Applicant was determined to have patterns and behavior that were fixed and rigid thus making his prospects for responding to treatment low.  As a result, this diagnosis served as the basis for the Applicant’s administrative separation.  The Applicant contends that his diagnosis was improper because it was made without him present, by a non-clinical provider, the result of undue influence by his leadership on his providers, and a misdiagnosis.  Instead of a personality disorder the Applicant feels he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from earlier trauma in his career, and thus, his providers misdiagnosed him.  After conducting a thorough review of all the available information, the Board concluded his diagnosis was both valid and accurate.  The Board did not find any evidence that his diagnosis was compromised or influenced by his chain of command.  Additionally, although the Applicant feels he has undiagnosed PTSD, a thorough review of both his service medical records and Veterans Affairs documentation did not reveal sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim.  However, the Board evaluated the Applicant’s service in its entirety and noted he completed an Honorable period of service prior to his separation that was marked with laudatory evaluations and the awarding of a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.  During the period of service in question the Applicant was the subject of an NJP for violation of Articles 117, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ.  The Board considered his misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career but did not find that it rose to constitute a significant departure of military conduct in the context of his more than five year military career.  Thus, after viewing the facts of this case with liberal consideration and considering the totality of the Applicant’s service, the Board found it appropriate to grant an upgraded discharge characterization.  Relief granted. 

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.  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 this case, the Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  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.  To fully understand the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s separation, the Board heard his testimony and examined his statement, evidence, Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), medical records, and solicited the opinion of a Navy physician.  Additionally, due to the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, and in accordance with the guidance published in the Hagel and Kurta Memos, the Board viewed the facts of this case with liberal consideration.  The record shows the basis for the Applicant’s administrative separation is a personality disorder.  The Applicant contends that this diagnosis is inaccurate, the result of undue influence by his leadership upon his medical providers, and determined in his absence.  Additionally, the Applicant contends his rights were routinely violated and his family situation was mishandled by his chain of command.  To evaluate the merits of his issues, the Board carefully considered the Applicant’s testimony and weighted it against all the available information.  Upon conducting a thorough analysis the Board did not discern sufficient evidence of any instances where the Applicant’s rights were violated or where his command negatively impacted his family situation.  The Board found no evidence of malicious intent or negligence by his command when handling his disciplinary matters.  Additionally, the Board does not dispute that the Applicant had a difficult family situation upon his arrival in Hawaii, however, the Board did not identify any instance beyond his statements where his command purposefully or negligently created a stressful situation for him or his family.  Finally, the Board examined the Applicant’s medical records alongside his testimony to ensure the Applicant’s concerns were fully addressed.  After a complete analysis of all available medical information available and hearing the opinion of a Navy physician, the Board concluded that the Applicant was appropriately evaluated and diagnosed by competent medical authority.  Upon evaluating the entirety of the Applicant service and viewing the facts of his misconduct and medical condition with liberal consideration the Board determined that the entirety of the Applicant’s service was Honorable.  

Further, and most relevant to the Applicant’s case, when a Service Member’s Command suspects a physical condition interferes with their effective performance of duty, they should be referred to the appropriate medical authority.  If examination by a medical officer confirms the Service Member is suffering from a physical condition apparently beyond the individual’s control and indicates that the condition is not a disability, a command should initiate separation proceedings.  In this case, the Applicant was recommended to be administratively separated for the convenience of the government, and it was determined they had a medical condition, not a disability.  

Based on the Applicant’s condition at the time of separation, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation for Condition not a Disability.  The characterization for this reason is Honorable unless an Uncharacterized or General (Under Honorable Conditions) is warranted.  The Applicant served more than 180 days and was not eligible for an Uncharacterized discharge.  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.  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.  

After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB found the Applicant’s characterization of discharge should be Honorable, and the narrative reason for the discharge, Condition Not a Disability.

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 .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY with a corresponding separation code of JFV, and the reentry code shall  RE-3P.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

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.