ex- SR, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200930
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-140 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Reentry Code change to: REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20100712	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20120427	Highest Rank/Rate:  HN
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  09  Month(s)  16  Day(s)
Education Level:  NFIR	AFQT:  NFIR
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.8 (4)   Behavior/Conduct: 1.8 (4)   OTA: 2.42 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Pistol  NDSM GWOTSM NMCOSR 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20120315:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded: FOP RIR RESTR EPD    Suspended:  RIR (Vacated 20120323)  

- 20120406:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: RIR RESTR EPD FOP  Suspended:      
	
Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20120315:	For violation of articles 86, 92 and 111. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20140109
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND13-01176
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 29, effective 10 November 2009 until 20 July 2012, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code in order to reenlist in the Armed Forces.
2.	The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade and contends that service connected PTSD mitigates the misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20230823		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.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  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 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)

:  The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code in order to reenlist in the Armed Forces.

The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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 to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  An unfavorable reentry 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.

:  The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade and contends that service connected PTSD mitigates the 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 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 did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/ behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes – Occupational Problem (likely, an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder), Alcohol Use Disorder (military) 

		
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; unable to locate discharge physical exam	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	HISTORY INCLUDES:
NJP:  2

- 20120315:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded: FOP RIR RESTR EPD    Suspended:  RIR (Vacated 20120323)  

- 20120406:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: RIR RESTR EPD FOP  Suspended:      
	
Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20120315:	For violation of articles 86, 92 and 111. 

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

Date of Birth: 25 Aug 1991

24 Feb 1995—“    

Removal of clot from right ventilation tube.”

CHILD HOOD: Patient reported that he was born and raised on Saipan by his biological parents along with an older sister. He reported that while growing up he engaged in four-wheeling, hiking, exploring, study. He admitted to adjustment problems during his early years related to cleft palate issues. He denied childhood trauma, neglect and abuse during his formative years.

Applicant’s father claim, basically, of PTSD @ BIRTH (Complicated BREACH presentation at labor) & being ridiculed during childhood for CLEFT PALATE deformity and its effect on speech.
 
Education Level:   NFIR

MEPS:  AFQT:  NFIR 

12 Jul 2010—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 18

16 Jan 2011 – Arrived for duty, Naval Hospital Guam

12 Feb 2012—“Horrific…” MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT & civilian arrest (BAC 0.16)

21 Feb 2012 SARP Clinic (USNH) NH Guam

21 Feb 2012 SARP Clinic (USNH) NH Guam

21 Feb 2012—Evaluation:  
AXIS I:NO PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS OR CONDITION 
NO PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS OR CONDITION ON AXIS I (V71.09)
“…20 year old single Caucasian male…He is an incident referral after a DUI and underage drinking arrest on 12 Feb 2011 involving a vehicular accident (BAC: .16).  Patient has not yet received administrative discipline.” 

July 16, 2011 to February 29, 2012—Evaluation Report and Counseling Report (El­ E6) dated 08 March 2012…Comments: 'Highly motivated Hospital Corpsman who meets the demands and challenges of a high-census high-acuity Multi-Service Unit (MSU) of over 270 bed days per month. He delivered high-quality patient and family-centered care, administering medications and…’” (per father’s Application)

15 Mar 2012 – NJP (Art 86, 92, 111 [Drunken or Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle])

23 Mar 2012 – Vacating of prior punishment

04 Apr 2012 Mental Health NH Guam

06 Apr 2012 – NJP (Art 92)

09 Apr 2012—OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM

10 Apr 2012—Mental Health NH Guam:  OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM

13 Apr 2012—Mental Health NH Guam:  OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM:
 “HPI:  PT is a 20 y/o single Asian male with 1 year 9 months CAD service USN first seen April 10, 2012 for difficulty coping with stressful life situations. PT has recently been placed on restriction and is pending separation from military service for charges related to ARI and failure to obey restriction policy…PT first discussed what led to his decision to drink the night of the incident [ alcohol related MVA] which led to the termination of a friendship with an ex-girlfriend…” 

23 Apr 2012 SARP Clinic (USNH) NH Guam

23-25 Apr 2012 – ALCOHOL IMPACT Training (SARP Level 0.5)

24 Apr 2012 SARP Clinic (USNH) WEAVER, GRANT D. NH Guam

25 Apr 2012 SARP Clinic (USNH)

26 Apr 2012—Mental Health Department MEMORANDUM…Subj:  ALCOHOL IMPACT COURSE COMPLETION:

“subject member satisfactorily completed half of the Alcohol Impact education course which is considered 10 hours out of 20 hours on 26 April 2012. The portions he attended included curriculum in the nature of alcohol, reasoning behind alcohol use. Navy and DOD policies and the appropriateness of individual use, the disease of alcoholism, recovery options, drugs other than alcohol, early warning signs of abuse and values including Navy Core values. The member did not attended the assigned and required twelve-step recovery meeting, he did not complete a responsible use plan, stress management, anger management or the medical aspects portion of the course.”
 
27 Apr 2012—DISCHARGE:  GUHC/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
 
POST SEPARATION:

30 Apr 2012—Per father’s (Ed.D. & Certified Child Responder) NDRB Application document included:  The Applicant “was eventually convicted of the lowest DUI charge of only one count of misdemeanor DUI…on April 30, 2012, three days after his discharge. This fair decision was based upon the extenuating circumstances of the accident, which was mainly caused by the challenging location of the accident, (a dark wet street and sloping curve design). Furthermore, the judge found that [the Applicant]… appeared in shock but fairly composed after the accident and he wasn't convicted of harsher offenses of an excessive BAC-DUI or reckless driving, or having injured anyone, or underage drinking. The judge also seemed aware that Angello was possibly a victim of police entrapment… [allegedly the public, including the Applicant’s father was not allowed to be present]”

30 May 2023—Mercy Cedar Rapids IA Letter to Applicant:
“It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Mercy Cedar Rapids team as Staff Nurse (RN) ...in Emergency Department at an hourly rate of $30.109 plus applicable shift differentials. Your hire date (first date of employment) is 5/31/2023.”

COMMENT:  The Applicant’s formative background included having been the product of a dangerously complicated birth delivery process (stalled breach birth presentation) born with what eventually proved to be a psychologically and, to a degree, surgically complicated congenital cleft palate.  Such scenarios can provoke intensely protective instincts in parents and portend a more protracted maturation process that, arguably, influenced the Applicant’s preparation to adjust to the challenges normal to Military (Navy) service life.   Moreover, such protective instincts are, likely, also reflected in the role played by the Applicant’s father in his NDRB Application process and his continued participation in his son’s PAH.  

At today’s PAH, the moving background testimony (of both father and Applicant) as to the traumatic circumstances of the Applicant’s birth (complicated, prolonged labor resulting burst membranes incident to breach birth presentation with head caught in birth canal), cleft palate deformity requiring surgical intervention) resulting in delayed speech articulation development and resultant subjection to related ridicule during developmental years is noted.  Also noted, were indications suggesting innocence with respect to cell phone charges, the  complicated contributions of the Applicant’s immaturity and naïve life experience to adjustment difficulties resulting in poor judgement when dealing with problems with his barracks roommate’s obstructive behavior and complicated difficulty with violating barracks prohibition of including girlfriend’s presence resulting in excessive alcohol intake resulting in a serious alcohol related motor vehicle accident, in turn, allegedly, resulting in symptoms of PTSD (speculated in Application noted in PAH testimony as reportedly manifested by daily distraction by traumatic memories but no record of competent clinical diagnosis or treatment in Service Treatment Record or other objective clinical record).  Also, it is, incidentally, noted medical conditions acquired or aggravated as a result of a UCMJ violation would not likely be eligible for benefits related thereto.  All that said, despite the foregoing stressors, the Applicant has managed to persevere post discharge shifting his professional focus to pursuing a Nursing career as reflected in the above mention of recent employment as a Nurse.  There would appear to be a nexus between the Applicant’s clinically diagnosed Occupational Problem (likely, an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder complicated by an Alcohol Use Disorder and the behavior resulting in his separation such that consideration at least as a matter of clemency, fairness and equity appears indicated.	

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 Board found 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 determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violation of Articles 86, 92(2), and 111 of the UCMJ for being absent without leave after arrest for underage drinking DUI crash.  The second Article 92 was after the command gave the Applicant an opportunity recover from his mistake, he chose self-interest over following direct orders while still on restrictions from the first NJP of sneaking an unauthorized cell phone in his room and gave the command a broken cell phone.  Of the UCMJ for violations of Article 111 and the second Article 92, this was a willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  A review of the Applicant’s medical records provides evidence that the Applicant was diagnosed with occupational problem (likely an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder) and Alcohol Use Disorder.  The Applicant’s claims his PTSD was caused by his DUI accident. 

The NDRB requested all records of medical treatment, both active duty and post-service, from the VA.  The records received from the VA failed to document any request for evaluation, any diagnosis, or any findings of PTSD or other mental health concerns.  Moreover, the Applicant did not provide any evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD from any other private mental health treatment provider to document his claim.  The NDRB found insufficient evidence in the record of any indications of, or diagnosis for, PTSD.  Additionally, there is insufficient evidence in either the Applicant’s service record, or the documentation he provided, that demonstrated any problems or symptoms manifesting during his enlistment from his service.  Furthermore, the Applicant’s record does not document any attempts to seek help for any PTSD symptoms while in service.  Based upon available information the Board was unable to find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s mental health and his misconduct.  Therefore, the Board held that the Applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of service members and it could not be mitigated by his mental health condition.  Given the severity and amount of misconduct, the NDRB did not find grounds to mitigate the totality of the misconduct and how it could outweigh the assignment of the discharge characterization assigned.  Consequently, the Board found the assigned characterization of service General (Under Honorable Conditions) is appropriate but with a narrative of Secretarial Authority strictly on leniency and a clemency ground is appropriate.  Full relief to Honorable was not granted as the Board found that the Applicant’s mental health condition did not rise to such an incapacitating level as to exonerate him of all misconduct.  

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.  (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.