ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20191227
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   COURT-MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 1105 [COURT-MARTIAL] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20010807	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20070917	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  05  Year(s)  07  Month(s)  17  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  38
Deployment/Operation:  ; 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.2 (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  GWOTSM NDSM GWOTEM SSDR (2) PUC-N CoC (Individual Award)  

Periods of UA:  2004012 - 20040412, 31 days
Periods of CONF:  20040412 - 20040901, 143 days
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:     CIVIL ARREST:     CC:     NJP:  NONE 

SPCM:  1

- 20040524:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 20040312-20040412, 31 days
	Article 87 (Missing movement)
	Article 121 (Larceny)
	Article 123 (Forgery)	
	Sentence: BCD CONF 12 months FOP RIR E-1
	CA: The sentence is approved and will be executed.  Execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 180 days is suspended for a period of 12 months from the date of this action.  

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20030814: Not recommended for promotion to Cpl because of failure to qualify at rifle range. 
 
- 20031015: Not recommended for promotion to Cpl due to Lack of Initiative. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “MEMBER PARTICIPATED IN OEF/OIF FROM 20030210 TO 20030526”
	  “MARCORSEPMAN 1105”
		
The NDRB will recommend to Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ch 2), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant is seeking care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
2.	The Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly by his command and coerced into pleading guilty.
3.	The Applicant contends that he sought help for PTSD at the time of his misconduct, but did not receive adequate treatment, and implies his condition mitigated his misconduct. 

Discussion

Date:  20230202		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.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from February to May 2003 in support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) and IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF).  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 87 (Missing movement)
Article 121 (Larceny)
Article 123 (Forgery)

The Applicant’s record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudicated by Special Court-Martial on 24 May 2004.  The case was submitted for appellate review to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and the findings were affirmed on 29 August 2007.

:  The Applicant is seeking care from the VA to treat PTSD. 

The Applicant is seeking VA benefits.  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 and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.

VA-run Vet Centers also provide lifelong free mental health counseling regardless of discharge status.  To find your local Vet Center, go to www.va.gov/find-locations and search for “Vet Centers” under Facility type.  The Applicant is further encouraged to seek mental health treatment through the health insurance provided by his current employer, Wal-mart. 

:  The Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly by his command and coerced into pleading guilty.

The Applicant contends he was treated unfairly by his command.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command treated him unfairly.  The Applicant’s service included two retention warnings and one Special Court-Martial for violations of UCMJ Articles 86, 87, 121, and 123.  Violations of UCMJ Article 86, 87, 121, and 123 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized.

The Applicant implied he was coerced into pleading guilty at his court-martial.  In accordance with Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1, relevant and material facts as stated in a court-martial are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  As such, matters of propriety related to the conduct of a punitive court-martial (e.g., Special Court-Martial) are addressed through the appellate review process by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals or through further petitioning for a review by the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.  The Applicant’s appellate rights statement and certification of his acknowledgment of those rights, which detail this process, are appended to the verbatim record of trial by court-martial.  In the Applicant’s case, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the decision.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

:  The Applicant contends that he sought help for PTSD at the time of his misconduct, but did not receive adequate treatment, and implies his condition mitigated his misconduct.

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 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 a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	No	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	NA	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	NA	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unclear – final physical not found	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s treatment and service records in addition to personal appearance testimony on 2 February 2023.

The Applicant, a Marine veteran with a single deployment to OEF/OIF, was separated with a Bad Conduct Discharge at Special Court Martial for desertion and forging a stolen check.  The Applicant, in his testimony and submitted documentation, states that his frame of mind during this period was heavily distorted by PTSD and anxiety/bereavement issues.  

18 Apr 2002 – Arrived at Battalion
20 Mar – 26 May 2003 – Deployment OEF/OIF
20 Dec 2003 – Forged/stolen check issue
12 Mar – 12 Apr 2004 – UA period
Apr – May 2004 – Pre-trial confinement
24 May 2005 – SPCM (Art 86, 87, 121, 123)
24 May – 01 Sep 2004 – Confined and discharged
I was unable to find any medical documentation supporting a mental health diagnosis.  In questioning the Applicant, I found no supportive nexus between his mental health and his decision to go AWOL.  	

The Applicant contends he is innocent of the larceny and forgery charges which began the chain of events that led to his court-martial, but admits that when told he was about to deploy and rejoin his unit in Iraq, he made the conscious decision to go home to Georgia and place himself in an Unauthorized Absence (UA) status, whereby he missed movement in violation of UCMJ Article 87.  However, he claims to not have understood the implication at the time, since his unit had already deployed to Iraq without him, presumably due to issues with the ongoing investigation for larceny and forgery.  The Applicant claims to have voluntarily surrendered to authorities 31 days after going UA.  While the DD Form 616 in his record indicated he was apprehended, the listed location of apprehension as Camp Pendleton supports the Applicant’s assertion that he surrendered to his command of his own free will.  Nonetheless, he subsequently pled guilty to all four charges at Special Court-Martial.

The Applicant further contends that he was suffering from behavioral health conditions, specifically PTSD, resulting from his 2003 deployment in support of OEF/OIF that qualify him for consideration and relief.  The Applicant claims to have met with a mental health counselor at some point between his return from Iraq in May 2003 and his misconduct in March 2004, but no reference to such a visit could be found in his medical record, nor could the Applicant recall any specifics regarding the timeframe or circumstances of this meeting.  The Applicant also offered no post-service diagnosis with PTSD or another health condition to substantiate his claim.  Consequently, the Board found insufficient evidence to find a nexus between his mental health and the Applicant’s decision to go UA and subsequently fail to join his unit on deployment.

In reviewing discharges, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.    In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The NDRB found the evidence of record did contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors, specifically his age, maturity and ability to understand the implications of his actions at the time, to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  The Board granted liberal consideration/clemency, but still found the Applicant was not completely absolved of his immaturity, poor judgment, and misconduct in abandoning his unit in time of war and thereby impacting the operational readiness of his unit.

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 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 (OTH) 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.  A Bad-Conduct Discharge (which is an authorized sentence at both a General Court-Martial and a Special Court-Martial) is a severe punishment, although less severe than a dishonorable discharge, and may be adjudged for one who in the discretion of the court warrants severe punishment for bad conduct even though such bad conduct may not include the commission of serious offenses of a military or civil nature.  A Dishonorable Discharge (which is an authorized sentence only at a General Court-Martial and therefore not in issue here) is reserved for those who in the opinion of the court should be separated under conditions of dishonor after conviction of serious offenses of a civil or military nature warranting such severe punishment.  

In this case, the Applicant engaged in conduct that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve, his Proficiency and Conduct averages of 4.2 and 4.2, his Certificate of Commendation, his deployment during the initial invasion of Iraq under OIF, his lack of misconduct prior to the issues that led to his court-martial, the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization, the price he has paid for his misconduct over the nearly 19 years, and his resilience in overcoming the stigma of his discharge and finding gainful employment.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service to Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was warranted as a matter of clemency.  Partial relief granted.  Full relief was not granted because the misconduct still constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.

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  COURT-MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of Jjd2, 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.