ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20200313
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.6 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE]

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  		Active:   20100823 - 20151009  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20151010	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:  05 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20171127	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  01  Month(s)  17  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  66
Deployment/Operation: 

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

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (7) Pistol  GCM NDSM GWOTSM MM LoA (24) OVSM CoC Individual (3) CoA (3)

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

NJP:  NONE   SPCM:  NONE  CIVIL ARREST:  NONE  CC:  NONE

SCM:  1

- 20170920:	Article 128 (Assaults)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Sentence:  30 days of restriction
	CA:  Approved and executed as ordered.

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20160920:	For a recent NCIS investigation shows your lack of self-control when consuming alcohol that consistently leads to the abusive treatment of your spouse.

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.  Paragraph 6210.6, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 26 November 2013 until present.

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

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his command should have given him an opportunity to rehabilitate himself.
2.	The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
3.	The Applicant contends military sexual trauma (MST) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were mitigating factors in his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20220819		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 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.  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 UCMJ:
Article 128 (Assaults)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his command should have given him an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

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.

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.

Based on the totality of the Applicant’s misconduct outlined below, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Furthermore, the NDRB determined no impropriety or inequity in his discharge.  Based on the Applicant’s violent behavior towards his spouse, it was not the responsibility of the Corps to rehabilitate him for continued service.  Documentation also indicated that prior to attending post-misconduct substance abuse rehabilitation in December 2016, he failed to use any of the available resources to seek help for his known alcohol dependency or counseling for his significant marital issues.  As such, these issues do not warrant an upgrade.

:  The Applicant contends MST and PTSD were mitigating factors in his misconduct.

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 not have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition did not exist during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh 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?	No diagnosis while in-service.  Post-service by VA.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	No	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unknown	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Air traffic radar tech then RECON.  Served 23 August 2010 to 27 November 2017.  OTH for assault and battery in 2016, drunk and disorderly 2014.  Pled guilty. Claims MST and PTSD were mitigating.  Claims was victim of unreported sexual assault while he was drunk in room on 6 July 2012.  Claims assailant was Marine.  The member also claims that he was the victim of childhood sexual assault that he first disclosed at PAH.  The evidence shows that the applicant disclosed the military sexual assault incident to a SARP counselor on 6 December 2016.  The member testified that while he was in Service he did not disclose this sexual assault incident to anyone other than this counselor this one time.  On several occasions in the medical record between 2012 and 2016 the applicant denied any history of abuse.  The applicant was not diagnosed with PTSD during military Service.  He testified that he does think that he had PTSD symptoms during his Service, for example, anger and rage.  He stated that he was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA after discharge.  He stated that at the VA he received a few sessions of treatment before stopping treatment and going the AA route instead.  His last mental health treatment was 2019 and last AA meeting was 2019.  The applicant has a significant history of problematic alcohol use prior to the alleged MST.  The 14 November 2011 medical note included the following, “Pt has voiced minimal acceptance of an alcohol problem.  He has described a pre-service history of weekly excessive use with blackouts until age 20, a blackout episode on boot leave in December 2010, a blackout in September 2011, and a blackout on 29 October when he received charges of DUI and assaulting a police officer.  He has been to NJP and is pending civilian charges.  He has a history of increased tolerance as well as continued drinking despite recurrent blackouts.  He also admitted to recurrent drinking and driving.  Level II treatment is recommended to rule out alcohol dependence.”  The member resumed drinking alcohol about a year after completing Level II.  After another alcohol related incident in 2016 he completed Level III treatment.  The record shows that the applicant had instances of misconduct that occurred both before and after the alleged military sexual trauma.  The evidence does not demonstrate that military sexual trauma was necessary for the applicant’s misconduct, thus a nexus between military sexual trauma and misconduct could not be established.  The member was not diagnosed with PTSD during Service and is not currently receiving PTSD treatment.  The applicant’s post-Service accomplishments are laudable, but do not overcome the severity of his misconduct.  Medical officer opinion is that there are no grounds for an upgrade.	

The Board found insufficient evidence in the record for any indications of, or diagnosis for, a Mental Health Diagnosis stemming from MST and PTSD, which would substantiate a nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and challenges incurred from a mental health condition.  Additionally, the Applicant’s record does not document any attempts to seek help for any mental health symptoms – MST and PTSD while in service.  Furthermore, the Applicant conducted an administrative separation (ADSEP) proceedings PTSD screening checklist dated 17 October 2017.  Here, he answered all questions “not at all” or “a little bit” and therefore this checklist did not trigger further PTSD screening requirements.

While the Board acknowledges the Applicant’s U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating, the NDRB is not bound by VA decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB.  Decisions reached by the VA to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Navy.  The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy and Marine Corps when determining a member’s discharge characterization.

The Board found the Applicant’s misconduct deliberate and significant in nature.  The Applicant’s medical documentation noted a significant pre-service history of alcohol dependency that led to his first in-service alcohol related incident (ARI) while in MOS school aboard Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL.  Here, the Applicant was pulled over by civil law enforcement and initially charged with DUI and assaulting an officer.  In his hearing, the Applicant acknowledged he dragged the officer with his vehicle as the officer was attempting to remove him from it.  This incident prompted two felony and two misdemeanor charges.  However, felony charges were ultimately dropped after the officer agreed not to pursue them and the Applicant was found guilty of DUI.  Given the Applicant endangered the life of a civil law enforcement officer, the Board was surprised the Applicant was not ADSEP’d from the Marine Corps for this incident alone.  It is important to note that the Board used this incident to establish a history of ARIs only.  Since this NJP occurred during a prior period of enlistment and was not a basis for ADSEP, it had no bearing on the Board’s overall decision.

The Applicant indicated he was sexually assaulted by a male Marine after drinking heavily at a barracks party aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in the summer of 2012.  He also noted in his hearing that he had a pre-service sexual assault.  Because the Applicant was embarrassed by the barracks assault, he did not report it until receiving alcohol treatment in 2016 and had not disclosed his pre-service sexual assault until his hearing with the NDRB.  The Board had no reason to believe that either of these sexual assaults were fictitious.  Shortly after his sexual assault, he married a female Marine who had recently returned from a deployment to Afghanistan and the two moved from the barracks to CA.  The Applicant described having a tumultuous and toxic relationship with his spouse – characterized by verbal and physical abuse.

The Applicant had a second, unreported ARI in 2013 after attending a function held by his wife’s command.  The Applicant became intoxicated over the course of the event and during their drive home, he jumped out of the moving vehicle.  The Applicant acknowledged this incident occurred because of an argument between him and his wife, which started earlier at the unit function.  

Police were called to the scene and the Applicant was handcuffed and transported to Vista Memorial Hospital for treatment.  Based on the Applicant’s statements in his hearing, it appeared the officer was concerned by his level of intoxication and potential aggressiveness, so the officer called for support before removing the Applicant from his police vehicle and taking him inside the hospital.  While the Applicant was not charged with civil misconduct and this incident went unreported to the Applicant’s or his wife’s commands, this event was highlighted to demonstrate the Applicant’s continued pattern of poor decisions stemming for excessive alcohol consumption.

In April 2016, the Applicant and his wife celebrated his graduation from reconnaissance training in the Gas Lamp District of San Diego.  The evening concluded back at their hotel room after another alcohol induced argument, which stemmed from an inappropriate comment made by the Applicant towards another women in the presence of his wife.  The Applicant acknowledged putting his hands on his wife in a threatening manner while in their room and told the Board he immediately called the police because he was concerned he might further harm her.  He described hanging up his cell phone when an emergency operator answered his call.  This operator called back and his wife answered and went on to describe the events that had just transpired.  This immediately led to another physical altercation in which the Applicant pinned his wife’s arm behind her back and forced her face into a desk.  It is important to highlight that his wife’s statements to Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) following this incident differ from his statements to the Board. She stated that he grabbed her throat and chocked her, slammed her to the ground, and verbally assaulted her.  Police were called to the Renaissance and his wife was removed from the hotel for the night.  Neither the Applicant nor his wife were arrested and again, no civil charges were filled over this incident.  However, his wife did inform NCIS who initiated an investigation into the Applicant’s alleged spousal abuse.  The NCIS investigation also unveiled another alleged, unreported physical assault committed by the Applicant on his wife, as well as another ARI, both in 2014.  The third ARI in 2014 stemmed from the Applicant getting intoxicated and inappropriately touching and making sexually explicit comments towards his wife’s friend, a female Marine SNCO, while her and her boyfriend were visiting the Applicant and his wife at their home in Lake Forest.

The Applicant was ultimately taken to SCM and charged with violating multiple specifications of UCMJ Articles 120, 128, and 134.  The Applicant exercised his right to qualified military counsel and entered into a pretrial agreement where he agreed to plead guilty to one specification of Article 128 and Article 134.  These Articles covered the Applicant’s ARI in 2014 and the physical assault of his wife in April 2016.  Two specifications of Article 120 for inappropriately touching a female SNCO in 2014 and one specification of Article 128 for physically assaulting his wife in 2014, were dropped.  As part of his pretrial arrangement, the Applicant also agreed to waive his right to an ADSEP board and he was eventually separated from the Corps on 27 November 2017.  The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the due process rights of the Applicant during his SCM or ADSEP proceedings.

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.

While the Board acknowledges the entirety of the Applicant’s service, which included a prior period of Honorable service and numerous accomplishments and awards, the totality of the Applicant’s misconduct reflected a gross lack of judgement and was in contrast to the Marine Corps’ core values.  The Board was incapable of identifying any level of mitigation for his actions and decisions that would be supported by his reported condition.  Though the Applicant may feel that a Mental Health Diagnosis was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflected willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  After a thorough review, the NDRB determined that a Mental Health Diagnosis linked to MST and PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  Relief denied.

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

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  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) with a corresponding separation code of HKQ1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  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.