, ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200115
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.6 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20090420	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20120510	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  21  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  87
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.3 (7)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.2 (7)   
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  CAR (Afghanistan) SSDR ACM (w/2 Stars) GWOTSM NDSM NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan  

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20120327:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 3 specifications
	Article 108 (Military property; loss, damage, destruction, disposition)
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR   Suspended:  NONE  
	
Retention Warning Counseling:  5

- 20110920:	For failure to follow orders, poor judgement and lack of responsibility. 

- 20120216:	For having unregistered weapons in his vehicle on or about 20120109. 

- 20120225:	For failed to report to a scheduled dental appointment on 20120223, SMN rescheduled the dental appointment to 20120301 and failed to report to the rescheduled appointment.   

- 20120413:	For on 20120404 you were noticed to be in a disoriented state by your SNCOIC and the Company Commander ordered a “fit for duty” evaluation on you.  During the evaluation you had a positive result for “PCP” from a DNA blood sample given at the Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton, CA Per 10 U.S.C 1565 and forwarded to U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL) on 20120410.  

- 20120413:	For poor decision making ability, your failure to set a good example as a Marine, and your inability to follow and abide by regulations. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20180411
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD17-00572
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.  Paragraph 6210.6, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), 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).

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 92, 112a.  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade on the basis of propriety due to the administrative separation board violating policy governing separation for individuals suffering from PTSD and TBI.
2.	As a matter of equity, the Applicant contends that PTSD and TBI are significant factors for mitigation regarding his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20230309		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.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

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 September 2010 to September 2011 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:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)  Three Specifications
Article 108 (Military property; loss, damage, destruction, disposition)

:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade on the basis of propriety due to the administrative separation board violating policy governing separation for individuals suffering from PTSD and TBI.

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 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.  During the separation proceedings, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with counsel, but waived his right to request a hearing before an Administrative Separation Board as the result of an agreement to avoid trial by special court-martial.  Therefore no Administrative Separation Board was conducted.  If the Applicant believed there were mitigating circumstances, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made.  During an Administrative Separation Board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges and submit evidence in support of his PTSD and TBI diagnosis as mitigation for his misconduct.  The Applicant submitted insufficient evidence to support his contention, therefore, the NDRB relied upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs.  

Further, the Applicant implies he was treated unfairly by the Separation Authority, specifically regarding his PTSD and TBI diagnosis.  The evidence of record indicates that a review of the administrative separation package, including the Applicant’s final physical indicating PTSD and TBI elements was conducted by the Separation Authority and a Staff Judge Advocate and found sufficient in law and fact.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was wrongfully discharged.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  The Separation Authority determines whether the allegations in the notification of the basis for separation are substantiated by the evidence. 

:  As a matter of equity, the Applicant contends that PTSD and TBI are significant factors for mitigation regarding 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 have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION

1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes – PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol/Substance Use Disorders, TBI (Military);
PTSD, TBI (VA);
Major Depressive Disorder (civilian – by report)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s treatment and service records in addition to personal appearance testimony on 9 March 2023.

The Applicant, a Marine veteran with a history of a year-long combat deployment to Afghanistan, was separated from the Marine Corps in 2012 for the commission of multiple serious offenses (weapons, drug paraphernalia, and destruction of government property).  In a rebuttal to the discharge characterization, the Applicant contends that service-connected PTSD and TBI led to excessive alcohol and substance use, which clouded his ability to make sound judgements.  Since discharge, the Applicant has engaged with the VA but does not have any service-connected disability.

Brief timeline:
20 Apr 2009 – Enlistment
Apr 2010 – Self-referral to SARP for Alcohol Use
24 May – 11 Jun 2010 – Intensive Outpatient Therapy (Level 2.5)
06 Sep 2010 – 30 Aug 2011 – OEF Deployment
24 May – 3 Jun 2010 IED blast (+ MACE screening, negative follow-on screening, returned FFD)
3 Aug 2011 – Unremarkable PDHA completed.
16 Dec 2011 – Positive findings at PDHRA appointment.  Declined mental health resources.
9 Jan 2012 – PMO incident (loaded weapon)
06 Mar 2012 – Rescreened by SARP for + EOTH use (IOP recommended)
12 Mar 2012  + UA for PCP (medical screening)
12 Mar 2012 – ED visit for anger, anxiety, depression
14 Mar 2012 – Barracks room search date (weapons, pipe found)
27 Mar 2012 – NJP (Art 92 x 3, 108)
4 Apr 2012 + UA for PCP (Fitness for Duty exam while on restriction)
6 Apr 2012 – Overnight psychiatric admission NMCSD
13 Apr 2012 – RWC (drug use)
10 May 2012 - Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files, submitted materials, and the Applicant’s testimony lends to the following conclusions:
1.	PTSD - I find credible evidence of PTSD in this case.  PDHRA and MOE from the Applicant’s service demonstrate recurrent symptoms including hypervigilance.  As such, I find it as-likely-as-not that the Applicant’s weapon charges related to a need to maintain personal safety.  
2.	TBI – While I find evidence that the Applicant was exposed to at least one IED during his deployment, I do not find any evidence that he suffered and protracted symptoms from TBI.
3.	Alcohol Use – I find it as-likely-as-not that the Applicant entered military service with a significant (and unreported) alcohol use disorder, as evidenced by his early treatment in the Intensive Outpatient Program in 2010.  However, it also find it likely that the Applicant’s post-deployment alcohol use was at least partially influenced by self-treatment of PTSD symptoms.
4.	Substance Use – Though the Applicant could not explain the multiple PCP findings on medical exams, he did admit to frequent use of illicit cathinones (“Bath Salts”).  However, drug use was never pursued by the Applicant’s command in formal testing or as a basis for separation.  From a medical review standpoint, use of Bath Salts likely had a deleterious effect on the Applicant’s positive PTSD symptoms.
5.	As stated in the Kurta memo, "[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI... and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances."  In balancing the misconduct with the Applicant’s service-connected exposures, I do find a nexus between some of the Applicant’s post-deployment behavior and his mental health.	

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 the misconduct that led to administrative discharge is mitigated by PTSD he suffers from and a TBI he incurred while serving on active duty. The petition for upgrade highlights the Applicant’s deployment history and that the misconduct occurred after a yearlong combat deployment in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. It was the PTSD from this deployment that ultimately contributed to the Applicant’s alcohol and substance abuse issues and poor decision making that led to his misconduct. While serving on active duty the Applicant was subject to one NJP for violation of Articles 92 and 108. These violations included bringing an unregistered weapon aboard a military installation, failing to register personal weapons, possessing drug paraphernalia and damaging military property.  Despite the voluminous amount of misconduct the Applicant claims that his behavior was heavily influenced by PTSD, and a TBI, that caused him to abuse alcohol as a means of coping. Ultimately, the alcohol abuse culminated in poor decisions that included behavior that was in contrast to upholding good order and discipline and in violation of the service drug policy. 

The NDRB’s review of the Applicant’s records included a thorough study of all materials submitted by the Applicant in addition to his official military service and medical records. The NDRB also requested and reviewed records from the VA. In assessment of the complete record the Board did note that the Applicant’s misconduct did occur after his deployment to Iraq and that his record prior did not contain any documented misconduct.  The Applicant’s record does indicate that he had been pre-disposed to alcohol prior to joining the Marine Corps. The record also reflects that he self-referred to CSACC for alcohol treatment before his deployment and successfully completed Level II outpatient treatment.  The Applicant testified, and the evidence of record supports that he witnessed one IED explosion and was involved in another IED blast.  The Applicant was screened for TBI, returned negative results for TBI, and returned to full duty while in country.  Further, the evidence of record does include a post deployment health assessment that shows the Applicant indicated he was in good overall health.  90 days later the Applicant completed a post deployment health reassessment that identified alcohol use and depression as major concerns but the Applicant refused mental health resources at that time.  

In regard to the specific misconduct that the Applicant was disciplined for the Board found it to be significant.  The Applicant brought loaded weapons aboard base in violation of numerous orders and regulations twice in three months.  Additionally, the Applicant damaged military property in his barracks room by rewiring light fixtures and electrical receptacles to install electricity in his wall locker creating a fire hazard in a building that housed Marines.  Further, the Applicant was found to be in possession of drug paraphernalia and although his command did not take action, tested positive for banned substances multiple times during urinalyses at base medical facilities.  

The Applicant’s discharge characterization is determined by an evaluation of the Applicant’s complete record inclusive of the misconduct. If the NDRB determines that an Applicant’s overall contributions and performance outweigh the misconduct an upgrade is granted. In this case the Applicant requests that the NDRB afford mitigation to the misconduct committed as it was influenced by PTSD and TBI so the substantial amount of misconduct is considered less severe, or excused, in the context of his complete record. A review of the statements and diagnosis outline the challenges experienced by the Applicant and their contingent on his abuse of alcohol. While the NDRB is receptive to conditions that contribute to circumstances it also accounts for the availability of treatment and the Applicant’s responsiveness and efforts to rehabilitate. In this case the record reflects that appropriate resources were available for the Applicant to access and leverage in order to assist with his issues, however, there is credible evidence of PTSD stemming from the Applicant’s combat deployment and that he likely used alcohol to self-medicate his symptoms forming a medical nexus to his documented PTSD and his misconduct.  Therefore, the NDRB voted to upgrade the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) and not change the narrative reason for separation.  Full relief to Honorable was not granted, because the NDRB did not find that his PTSD rose to a level as to completely absolve the Applicant of all of his misconduct.  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  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT 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.  (See www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions).  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, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost – including inpatient or crisis residential care for up to 30 days and outpatient care for up to 90 days.  Veterans do not need to be enrolled in the VA system to use this benefit.  In order 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 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.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost; you can use this benefit regardless of your discharge status, or enrollment in VA health care.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance, see Find your nearest VA medical center.