ex- AR, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200825
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

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:  20170725	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20190502	Highest Rank/Rate:  AA
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  09  Month(s)  08  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  43
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.33 (3)   Behavior/Conduct: 1.33 (3)   OTA: 1.83 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM SSDR GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:    Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE 

NJP:  1

- 20190228:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation), 2 specifications
	Awarded:  FOP    Suspended:  NONE

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20191016
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND19-01093
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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 43, effective 31 May 2013 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities and qualify for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefits.
2.	The Applicant contends that her discharge is inequitable due to the mistreatment she experienced from her command. 
3.	The Applicant contends her military sexual trauma (MST) was a mitigating factor in her misconduct. 
4.	Board Issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

Discussion

Date:  20230217		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 NDRB 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 NDRB 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 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI) was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or MST 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 

:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities and qualify for VA education benefits.

The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  

The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the VA, who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.  Additionally, VA-run Vet Centers also provide lifelong free mental health counseling regardless of discharge status.  To find your local Vet Center, go to www.va.gov/find-locations and search for “Vet Centers” under Facility type.

:  The Applicant contends that her discharge is inequitable due to the mistreatment she experienced from her command.   
 
The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue.  The Applicant contends that she was mistreated by her command which resulted in her being unfairly punished at NJP and discharged from military service.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced sufficient documented evidence for the NDRB’s consideration to support the Applicant’s contention that her command was unfair or mistreated her in any way.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.    

:  The Applicant contends her MST was a mitigating factor in her 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 NDRB 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 NDRB 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.  

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, Anxiety (Likely an Adjustment Disorder—USN); Major Depressive Disorder (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Uncertain	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Data includes:

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

17 Aug 1998—DOB
Education Level:  12 (during PAH, described herself as “not the smartest student” with the adolescent career ambitions of “Real Estate or Interior Design” but chose to enlist in the military for the “school benefit.”

25 Jul 2017—ENLISTMENT:  @ age 18

11/16/2017 – Arrives on CVN 74 JC (post overhaul) Puget Sound Washington

14-18 Aug 2018—HREs:  dealing with constipation & abdominal pain…
19 Aug 2018—HRE:  “20yo F seen several times in clinic for constipation lasting a couple weeks presents w/ continued abdominal pain. Received golytely 1 day ago and notes had firm bowel movement followed by multiple loose stools. No blood in stool. Feels that she emptied her bowels, but notes abdominal pain that has been present has not changed and is at a level of intensity that pt cannot sleep. No f/c. No n/v….Gastrointestinal symptoms: No heartburn, no nausea, and no vomiting. Abdominal pain. No bright red blood per rectum, no diarrhea, and no constipation”

10/15/2018-5/16/2019 – CVN 74 on WESTPAC deployment in support of Operation Freedom Sentinel and OIR, on homeport change to Norfolk VA (PER INTERNET)

31 Jan 2019—HRE:  “anxiety
Comments: Patient given psych intake packet given increased stress and repeated episodes of tearfulness during this encounter;
f/u tomorrow at 0715 for evaluation by ship's psychologist. I encouraged patient to make a f/u with me as well as needed if stress is getting worse.”

16 Feb 2019—“JCS Psychology [Ph.D. Psychologist]  Sleep Appointment:”  

“Patient is a 20-year-old single, African-American, AD/USN/SA/ E2/Undes female with 1 year and 7 months TIS currently stationed onboard USS JCS. Patient has been onboard for 1 year and 3 months and her EAOS is Jul 2021…Appears free of paranoia, delusions, ideas of reference, and other indications of disordered thinking. No evidence for the presence of hallucinations or other unusual sensory/perceptual experiences and does not appear to be responding to internal stimuli.
USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74) [Psychologist]”

2/28/2019 – NJP for violation of Art 92 (between 2 and 4 specs)

01 Mar 2019:  “20 y/o Ad female with long history of difficulty sleeping, now having diciplenary [sic] issues and having even harder time sleeping, referred to me by MH, we discussed different treatment options and she agreed to a trail of Trazodone 50 mg 1-2 tabs PO QHS, she will follow up in 1-2 weeks or sooner as needed… 20 y/o AD female was referred to this provider by MH for sleep disturbance. Patient reported sleep onset difficulty, estimating 2 hours to fall asleep. She stated she also has difficulty staying asleep. She was seen by Behavioral Health Technician in Nov 2018 for sleep, but did not return. She stated she made some changes in her sleep behavior; however, she continues to frequently remain in bed for an extensive period of time trying to fall asleep. Patient reported she is about to begin the disciplinary process and she anticipates being placed on restriction and being separated from the Navy… Disposition: Patient is psychologically fit for full duty, including shipboard operational
assignment. She is responsible for her actions and subject to the normal channels of counseling and discipline.  
Follow-up: Patient will follow-up after her discipline process, if desired, and if she does not get separated from the Navy.
Safety: Patient is NOT considered an acute safety risk. Patient is aware of appropriate military and medical resources available should she experience thoughts of harming self or other.
Consults: Referred back to PCM for sleep medication.…Released Without Limitations”

21 Mar 2019—“SEPARATION PHYSICAL:  

“20 yo female presenting for a separation physical. She notes only sleeping 5 hours/night (with several wake ups each night). She denies taking caffeine. Trazodone 50mg qhs has helped her fall asleep more easily, but she still has some wake-ups…military services physical separation (PHYSICAL EXAM, ABBREVIATED SEPARATION) Comments: 20 yo female who is fit for separation…”

29 Mar 2019—HRE:  “Appointment Reason For Visit: CONSTIPATION; menstrual-type cramping…She also reports constipation for th elast [sic] 5 days, with hard stools that are difficult to pass.”

4/21/2019 – transferred from CVN 74 to TPU 

02 May 2019—DISCHARGE per DD214:  RANK; AR/E1; UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL); MISCONDUCT – SERIOUS OFFENSE (COSO); JKQ; RE-4 
Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.33 (3)   Behavior/Conduct: 1.33 (3)   OTA: 1.83

POST SEPARATION:

05 May 2020—VA ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION DATA, SCREEN <11>
9434-MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER(70% SC)
EFF. DATE OF COMBINED SC%: SEP 18,2020
Original  Effective Date   - MAY 3,2019 
Current Effective Date    - SEP 18,2020

09 Apr 2021—VA MENTAL HEALTH TELEPHONE ENCOUNTER NOTE by an LCSW:

“She states that she wants treatment for depression and that she has a lot going on about herself that she doesn't understand." She had difficultly explaining this. She stated that she is experiencing social anxiety and isolation, feeling overwhelmed, depressed mood, arguing with her husband, irritability and angry outbursts, trouble sleeping (getting to and staying asleep), difficulty concentrating and thoughts of suicide. She states that she is depressed, anxious and irritable daily with trouble sleeping and that these symptoms began about 2 years ago, when she separated from the military. She states that she sought help once she left, but did not get the help that she needed. During this session, Veteran endorses passive SI without plan or intent at this time. She stated that her husband has guns that he keeps locked up and that they will consider locking up all sharp objects as well, until she is more stable. She is not amenable to creating a Suicide Prevention Safety Plan.

Abuse or Combat Experiences:
Veteran states that she experienced verbal abuse in the military. She denies having experienced other abuse, MST or combat.
MST Screening:  Patient denies experiencing MST in the past.
Medical:
Veteran endorses having brittle bones and anemia.
Substances:
Veteran endorses regular marijuana use after the death of her grandmother 2 years ago [~early 2019].
Alcohol Use Screen (AUDIT-C):
Alcohol Screen:
SCREEN FOR ALCOHOL (AUDIT-C)…alcohol screening test (AUDIT-C) was negative (score=1 [OF 3])…
 Social:
Veteran is married with no children.
MSE: Veteran was clear and coherent on the phone…

TREATMENT PLAN PROBLEMS
Problem 1. "My anger is awful and it does not take anything to anger me. Anxiety and PTSD and what I went through in the military and I don't know how to process it and I have trouble with friends and family and money management and being a mom. Just getting through life get really hard sometimes. I do have things to
look forward to and I manage things but I don't want to do anything I push but it is just hard". She is a new mom and has a daughter who is 6 months old and reports that it is overwhelming at times. She is not sleeping well and c/o being very tired. Goal(s): "Being selfless, right now I feel like I can be very selfish, being
there for more friends more than I have been I don't want to do anything with anyone. I don't care to hang out with my friends."
Growing up I was always happy to do things with my friends and make memories and I enjoyed it and now does not want. Now anxiety sets in and I feel like people are out to get me. Me and my husband are having misunderstanding and she is concerned about their marriage.” 

17 Feb 2023 PAH:  The Applicant reported continued inability to work incident to maintain employment due to residual anger and irritability but able to care for 7 month old daughter with the support of her husband whom she decided not wake for this hearing.  She began taking On Line classes two weeks ago.  With the help of the Panel, she was able to significantly clarify her somewhat disorganized submitted written statements.  Stated she would like to become a victim advocate.  

COMMENT:  The Applicant’s written submission and personal testimony, health record entries and history suggests some innate difficulty expressing herself clearly and succinctly under pressure which, likely, complicated her adaptation to Navy culture leading to what would be best characterized as an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder.  This includes early clashes with command authority due to mutual misunderstandings which, in turn set her up for inaccurate expectations, conflictual situations in which she found herself being yelled at (but neither physically nor sexual assaulted) and the NJPs that ensued leading to administrative separation.  The VA later diagnosed Anxiety and Depression for which they awarded Service Connection with a combined disability rating of 70%.  Accordingly, a nexus can be established between the Applicant’s misconduct and a mitigating mental health condition (primarily an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder).	

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  Per the Applicant’s testimony and evidence of the service record, her in-service conduct included two NJPs for minor disciplinary infractions of the UCMJ.  However, a review of the Applicant’s medical records indicate a diagnosis for anxiety and major depressive disorder.  Further, the NDRB found substantial evidence that the Applicant suffers from an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder.  The Applicant’s diagnosis for her mental health conditions coupled with the likely undiagnosed adjustment disorder, substantiates that the Applicant’s mental health was a mitigating factor associated with her in-service misconduct.  Moreover, the NDRB determined that the unique circumstances of this individual case, coupled with the documented mental health diagnosis, warranted additional consideration in the determination of overall characterization of service. 

Further, when reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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, weighing (using the scales of liberal consideration) the Applicant’s overall performance and conduct against the standards for characterization of service, the Board held that the Applicant’s mental health issues mitigated her misconduct, and that in totality her service minimally met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Thus, the NDRB found that the awarded characterization of service was inequitable and that relief in the form of an upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable is warranted.

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

The NDRB 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 NDRB held that it is authorized to make a change to the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.  For all the reasons stated above that supported the NDRB’s decision to warrant a change to the characterization of service, and in accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the NDRB held that mitigation should also be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In other words, the NDRB found that because the Applicant’s mental health conditions mitigated the 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 NDRB 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, the NDRB held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed honorable with a commensurate narrative reason for discharge.  

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, 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.  (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.