ex- PSSR, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200313
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-146 [DRUG ABUSE] 

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:  20020529	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years 27 Extension
Date of Discharge:  20060901	Highest Rank/Rate:  PN3
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  03  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  NFIR
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.5 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.0 (2)   OTA: 3.71 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM SSDR GCM MUC GWOTEM GWOTSM NAVY "E" NMCAM ESWS 

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

SPCM:      NJP:  NONE

SCM:  1

- 20060719:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Sentence: RIR CONF FOP
	CA: 

CIVIL ARREST:  2

- 20030724:	Charges:  Domestic violence and 4th degree assault.  

- 20031013:	Charges:  Domestic violence and 4th degree assault

CC:  2

- 20030903:	Offense:  Domestic violence and 4th degree assault
	Sentence: $5,000 ($4,000 suspended), Confinement 365 days (365 days suspended), Domestic Violence Assessment / Treatment Course, 24 Months Supervised Probation, No Contact Order for 2 Years and cannot Possess Firearms for 2 Years

-20031013:	Offense:  4th degree assault
	Sentence: $1,000 Fine, 5 Days Incarceration, Completion of Offender Treatment Program, and Issued a No Contact Order with Victim.

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20040505:	For record of civilian conviction.

- 20040506:	For record of civilian conviction.

- 20060725:	For being processed for Administrative Separation.  

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20190830
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND18-01182
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 Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until 1 June 2008, Article      
      1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – DRUG ABUSE.

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 requesting an upgrade for VA benefits and PTSD resources. 
2.	The Applicant contends he experienced many issues in the military which impacted his mental health and caused his misconduct.
3.	[BOARD ISSUE] – Change of narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. 

Discussion

Date:  20230216		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 

:  The Applicant is requesting an upgrade for VA benefits and PTSD resources.

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 (https://www.va.gov/) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.

:  The Applicant contends he experienced many issues in the military which impacted his mental health and caused 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 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.  

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 (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Unclear	
	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?	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 16 February 2023.

The Applicant, a Navy Personnel Man with a history of two deployments (one combat), was separated from the Navy in 2006 for drug abuse.  Additionally, three years prior to discharge, the Applicant was convicted of 4th degree assault on his spouse.  In rebuttal to his discharge, the Applicant claims undiagnosed mental health disorders mitigate his misconduct.  He submitted information indicating treatment in the VA, though no disability has been awarded.

Brief timeline:

29 May 2002 – Enlistment
15 Oct 2002 – Report for duty – USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)
Jan 13 – Sep 19 2003 – Deployment
13 Oct 2003 – Arrest – Bremerton 
14 Oct 2003 – Civilian Conviction (4th degree assault)
Jan 13 – 31 Jul 2005 – OIF/OEF Deployment
~ Feb 2006 – Loss of mother
20 June 2006 – Urinalysis (Results + for THC on 10 Jul 2006)
19 Jul 2006 – SCM (Art 112a)
01 Sep 2006 - Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	PTSD – Based on the testimony and VA records, I did not find a particularly compelling nexus created from deployment-associated stressors and the Applicant’s misconduct.
2.	Mental health – Unlike PTSD, I did find a strong connection between the confluence of negative personal stressors and the Applicant’s mental health.  The Applicant’s otherwise “hot running” career takes a very sudden turn with the stressors of the second deployment, the death of the Applicant’s mother, and household circumstances (change in homeport, etc.).  
3.	DV – While not condoning the DV incident in 2003, the mandatory nature of Washington’s DV legislation, the lackluster response by the chain of command, the completion of all court-mandated trainings/jail time, and the fact that the Applicant is still married to his spouse (and they have three children together) mitigates the weight of this offense in the Applicant’s total career.

Based this information, I do find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct 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. 

In this case, the Applicant’s service was 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.  In making its determination, the Board considered the totality of the Applicant’s service both his misconduct, his overall service which included his over four years of service, documented recognition for his work efforts while aboard the USS Carl Vinson, and awards.  The Board also considered the Applicant’s personal statement, the character statements submitted on his behalf, and his post-service conduct and accomplishments.  The Applicant testified that one of the civil arrests and convictions for domestic violence, in his record, is an administrative error.  The Applicant reported that the July 2003 civil arrest could not be him because he was still deployed on the USS Carl Vinson.  The Board confirmed that the USS Carl Vinson had not yet returned at that time and therefore, the Applicant could not have been arrested, in Washington State, at that time.  With regard to the October 2003 arrest, the Applicant acknowledged his role in the incident, reported that the police were called, but his wife did not press charges.  The Applicant further explained that the state of Washington had a mandatory arrest law for domestic violence calls.  This mandatory law was confirmed by the Board.  Further, the Applicant’s command did not pursue discharge, nor did they take any other action against the Applicant for that arrest and subsequent conviction.  The lack of action taken by the command could indicate the matter was less severe than it appears.  Additionally, twenty years later, the Applicant remains married to his wife, who wrote a letter of support on his behalf for the NDRB hearing.  The Applicant testified about his childhood exposure to substance abuse by his father, domestic violence between his parents, the depression and anxiety he developed while separated from his wife and young children as well as the experience of his ship facing a threat while underway.  The Applicant’s sudden loss of his mother who suffered a heart attack as he prepared to visit her shortly after he returned from deployment, led to his Article 112a violation.  The Applicant was later diagnosed with PTSD.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service was appropriate, and determined that the Applicant’s service generally met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance and that his digression from good order and discipline can be attributed to the Applicant’s mental health and personal stressors.  

Issue 3: BOARD ISSUE - 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.  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 that the narrative reason for separation should be Secretarial Authority.  Again reasserting all the reasons stated above that supported the Board’s decision to warrant a change to the characterization of service, and in accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the Board held that mitigation should also be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In other words, the Board found that because the Applicant’s Mental Health excused/mitigated the maliciousness/willful nature of the misconduct enough to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of service then it also rationally applied to the narrative reason for which the Applicant was discharged.  In essence, the Board found that the underlying narrative reason for the Applicant’s discharge is not misconduct, but the Applicant’s inability for continued Naval Service.  As such, stating in the simplest of terms, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a narrative reason for discharge of Secretarial Authority.

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  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF, 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.