ex- Cpl, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200103
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

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:  20110919	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20150918	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  00  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  66
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.5 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.4 (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  AAM NMCAM GCM NDSM ACM (W/1 STAR) GWOTSM SSDR(2) NATO CoA 

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

NJP:      SCM:      SPCM:      CIVIL ARREST:      CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20150602:	For alcohol related incident on 20150531.

- 20150716:	For testing positive for D-amphetamine (DAMP) (806ng/nl) during a random Command Urinalysis on 20150501.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20170727
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD17-00072
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.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until present, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his post-service achievements are deserving of consideration in the deliberation of his discharge characterization upgrade.
2.	The Applicant contends that his PTSD diagnosis that he received while serving on active duty affords mitigation to the circumstances surrounding the misconduct he was suspected of committing.
3.	The Applicant states that his discharge is unjust as he was processed for a violation that he did not commit and never afforded an adjudication means to adequately defend himself.
4.	Board Issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

Discussion

Date:  20220224		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 May to December 2013 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.  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:

:  The Applicant contends that his post-service achievements are deserving of consideration in the deliberation of his discharge characterization upgrade.  

The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided a personal statement, evidence of educational accomplishments, continuous employment and professional achievements and three character references inclusive of testimonial from his OIC who he was deployed with in OEF.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade the utilized the information and testimony provided to form a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.  While the Applicant’s post-service did not independently account for a means for an upgrade, the evidence provided help support substantiating the force, resilience and character of the Applicant. 

Issue 2.  The Applicant states that his discharge is unjust as he was processed for a violation that he did not commit and was denied an adjudication means to appropriately defend and acquit himself. 

The Applicant states that his discharge is inequitable as he was not afforded an adjudication medium that allowed him to accurately and fairly present his innocence. The Applicant was processed for violation of the Service Drug Policy due to the result of a positive urinalysis. The Applicant was not disciplined via NJP as he denied the command’s offer and instead requested a trial by court martial. The Commanding Officer decided not to refer matters to a court martial, but rather address the disciplinary issue through administrative processing means. While the Applicant believes he was not afforded the appropriate forum to acquit himself the actions of his command are not improper. The Applicant’s inability to defend himself in a capacity that requires a higher burden of proof does not present an impropriety to the NDRB, but rather that he was afforded due process.  

Issue 3:  The Applicant contends that his PTSD diagnosis that he received while serving on active duty affords mitigation to the circumstances surrounding the misconduct he was suspected of committing.

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.  

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. 

The Applicant states that his PTSD diagnosis and the treatment he was receiving affords mitigation to the circumstances surrounding the misconduct he was suspected of committing.  Accused of violating the service drug policy after testing positive for the use of amphetamine-D the Applicant was processed for administrative separation.  The Applicant states that he did not use any form of self-medication or illicit substances at any time and that the positive urinalysis result was a false positive triggered by a prescription he was assigned for treatment of his PTSD diagnosis. The record of evidence substantiates the fact that the Applicant was being treated by a licensed Medical Officer within the military medical system and prescribed medications to alleviate the issues associated with his mental health. These prescriptions were never withheld by the Applicant as he was forthright with all declarations and his record accurately documented the assignment and use. It is the Applicant’s contention that his positive urinalysis was the result of one of the prescribed drugs presenting the presence of amphetamines. Medical research studies provided within the record support the contention that the drugs prescribed to the Applicant could produce a false positive. The Applicant’s position of denial is supported by multiple studies specific to urinalysis testing where these prescription drugs were found to produce false positive results. The Applicant claimed had he not suffered from combat related PTSD then he would not have these valid prescriptions and he would not have tested positive because he denies using illicit and banned drugs. 

In review of the record of evidence, and through the testimony of the Applicant, the NDRB identified a conflict in the argument presented by the Applicant at his Administrative Separation Board and the rationalization of the Government’s argument against a finding of a false positive.  In support of his denial of drug use, the Applicant referenced specific studies and quantitative detection levels that were discovered in documented false positive experiments.  The Applicant’s levels and prescribed drugs aligned with the specific drugs used in the studies as well as the detection levels.  In the case presented during the Applicant’s administrative separation hearing, the Government argued testing procedures and calibration levels of equipment vice the susceptibility of the specific prescribed drugs to produce a false positive.  In addition, in review of the record of proceedings, the Government argued an unfounded scenario that could in no way be substantiated by accusing the Applicant of specifically using Adderall. The Government had no investigation or witness to support this position and ignored the relevant studies associated with the prescribed drugs. 

Supporting the Applicant’s position was the record of additional urinalysis taken within a two week period of the positive finding and his procedural confirmation urinalysis following discovery.  Subject to a total of six urinalysis, five being random, within a month and a half period only one presented positive results at an associated low level of amphetamine presence that correlates with the levels detected in the false positives within the studies.  The timing and number of tests lend favor to the Applicant’s position and legitimacy of his denial of using an illegal drug or banned substance.  

The Governments reasoning for separation ignores relevant facts raised by the Applicant at the time of his review board as the record reflects that these issues were not fairly considered.  In this case the NDRB determined that while the Applicant was afforded due process with regard to being able to exercise his right to an administrative separation hearing his petition to the panel was not fairly or appropriately considered.  Consistency of the Applicant’s explanation supported by documented studies from accredited labs and journals and the fact he was forthright with prescribed medications led the Board to identify an injustice.  Considering all factors, inclusive of his overall performance, within the record and the testimony provided by the Applicant, the NDRB identified grounds for relief and that an upgrade to Honorable is appropriate.   

The NDRB also voted to change the narrative from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to Completion of Required Active Service. The fact is that the Applicant was discharged the day of his EAS of 20150918 and he completed his enlistment contract. Assignment of any other narrative is inequitable and improper given that his last day of active duty service was completed the day of his EAS. His command’s assignment of anything else is reflective of an effort to unjustly punish the Applicant. The Applicant’s DD214 should not of reflected that he was administratively separated, but rather that he completed the tenure of the contract he had with the Government.  In addition, the NDRB voted to change the RE-Code to RE-1 as accompanying appropriate action. 

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.  member’s service record.  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 exceptional record of performance as supported with proficiency and conduct marks that attest to this.  The NDRB also found the conviction and endurance of the Applicant to fight against an injustice to be a sincere testimony to his position. The support and testimony of the Applicant’s character reference and the belief that this Officer had in his former subordinate also contributed to the NDRB’s position.  The Applicant does have a diagnosis for PTSD and has bravely sought resources and support.  This effort was echoed by his OIC who cited the Applicant’s admirable performance in hostile and austere environments and that he possessed unquestionable integrity and dependability. 

While the Applicant cited PTSD and mental health issues as mitigating factors to his situation, his petition was that these diagnosis did not mitigate misconduct as he claimed it did not exist.  However, the Board would also have granted relief where his PTSD diagnosis was considered, and assessed per policy and guidance, and find that the elements of the Kurta Memorandum would apply on the theory misconduct occurred.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant did have PTSD at the time of the misconduct he was accused of committing; however, it was the treatment and the likelihood that his valid prescription produced a false positive result. The initial decision of the Separation Authority did not accurately or fairly account for the possibility of the specific drugs prescribed producing a false positive. Taken into context with the Applicant’s record, post-service accomplishments and unmovable conviction caused the NDRB to find that any use of an illicit drug was not in the character of the Applicant and that a false positive was the most likely cause of the positive urinalysis.  

Issue: 4: Board Issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

The Board found a change to the Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority was authorized and warranted.  The NDRB has broad authority to review Department of the Navy discharges.  In accordance with SECNAVMAN 5420.1, ¶ 214 (Review on Motion of the NDRB) the NDRB may initiate a Discharge Review even without an Applicant’s request up until the discharge date exceeds 15 years.  The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis, and if such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Further, the NDRB does not require an applicant to make an express or implied contention; specifically, under ¶ 211 (Applications) an “applicant is encouraged, but not required, to identify an issue or issues as pertaining to the propriety or the equity of the discharge.” Thus, under ¶ 212 (Procedural Rights of the Applicant) the NDRB will consider that a request for review from an applicant who does not have an Honorable Discharge will be treated as a request for a change to an Honorable Discharge.  Similarly, an applicant may request a specific change in the narrative reason for separation.  However, if an applicant does not request a specific change in the reason for discharge, the Board will presume that the request for review does not involve a request for change in the reason for discharge.  However, this presumption does not waive “the NDRB’s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, the NDRB will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.”  Although highlighting the NDRB’s authority to review and change the narrative reason for discharge, the Board noted that “an applicant may not receive a less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation.” ¶ 207 (Objective of Review). 

Consequently, the Board held that it is authorized to make a change to the narrative reason for discharge; reasserted (without necessarily repeating in this section) all the reasons stated above for warranting a change to the characterization of service, and summarized the following considerations concerning the change to the narrative reason for discharge.  Specifically, the Board held the narrative should be changed from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to Completion of Required Active Service.  The fact is that the Applicant was discharged the day of his EAS of 20150918 and he completed his enlistment contract.  Assignment of any other narrative is inequitable and improper given that his last day of active duty service was completed the day of his EAS.  His command’s assignment of anything else is reflective of an effort to unjustly punish the Applicant.  The Applicant’s DD214 should not of reflected that he was administratively separated, but rather that he completed the tenure of the contract he had with the Government.  In addition, the NDRB voted to change the RE-Code to RE-1 as accompanying appropriate action. 
Therefore, stating in the simplest of terms, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed honorable with a commensurate narrative reason for discharge.  Relief Granted. 

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  COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE with a corresponding separation code of JBK, and the reentry code shall  RE-1.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to: Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board, 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309, Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023.

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

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

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