ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20201204
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:			Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20040608	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20080728	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  04  Year(s) 0  Month(s) 0  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  41
Deployment/Operation: IRAQI FREEDOM

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.7 (10)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.2 (10)   
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  CAR SSDR (2) KSDM GWOTEM ICM (2) GWOTSM NDSM LoA 

Periods of UA:  20040919 - 20041108, 51 days
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  20040919 - 20041108, 51 days

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  5

- 20041201:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 20040919 - 20041108, 51 days
	Awarded: FOP RESTR    Suspended:  NONE

- 20041221:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Article 134 (General article)
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:  FOP

- 20060518:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD   Suspended:  NONE

- 20070404:	Article 134 (General article) 
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:  FOP

- 20080522:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR    Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20041202:	For unauthorized absence.  

- 20080318:	For illegal drug use. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20110324	
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: MD10-01255	
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:

	  “MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5”

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.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

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

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SECRETARIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY DIRECTED DECISION

On 10 August 2022, the Secretarial Review Authority (SRA) set aside the NDRB’s Decision to change the Applicant’s Discharge to GENERAL; and directed the Applicant’s discharge shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS.

On 8 March 2022, the NDRB voted to upgrade the Applicant’s characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions), but declined to change the Applicant’s narrative reason of separation to “Secretarial Authority.”  In coming to their decision, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge (Under Other than Honorable Conditions) was proper but not equitable, given that the mental health of the Applicant at the time of his offense was a mitigating/exonerating factor for his misconduct.  However, the SRA disagreed with the NDRB’s decision.  

The stated reasons for the SRA decision were as follows: 

I [SRA] disagree with the Board’s decision to grant relief in the form of upgrading Applicant’s characterization of service due to untreated PTSD, primarily because I do not believe the condition outweighed the discharge.  In coming to this decision, and because the Applicant’s petition for discharge relief involves a mental health condition (PTSD), I applied the liberal consideration guidelines contained in references (e)-(g) [10 USC 1553; Kurta Memo; Wilkie Memo].  Specifically, I [SRA] considered the following four factors as required by reference (f): 

	a.  Factor 1:  Did the veteran (Applicant) have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge?

    	b.  Factor 2:  Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service?

    	c.  Factor 3:  Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?

    	d.  Factor 4:  Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge.  

With respect to the mental health condition I [SRA] consider the input from the NDRB’s medical board member.  The medical board member indicated that the Applicant suffered from a condition—PTSD—that existed at the time of his service and was present at the time of the misconduct.  The medical officer also found,

I [NDRB Medical Board Member] find reasonable evidence of the existence of combat-related PTSD along with concomitant self-medication through alcohol and marijuana.  Given the wide range of misconduct, some of which occurred prior to his deployment, the degree of mitigation (if any) will need to be determined by the board.

Relying on the advice of the medical officer, I [SRA] agree that factors 1 and 2 indicate that the Applicant suffered from PTSD, a mental health condition that may excuse or mitigate the misconduct and occurred during military service.  It’s worth nothing that, the Applicant’s medical condition was known by the Separation Authority at the time of his separation.  

As I [SRA] move into factors 3 and 4, I considered the following guidance of references (f) [Kurta Memo] and (g) [Wilkie Memo] that “[c]onditions or experience[s] that may reasonably have existed at the time of discharge will be liberally considered as excusing or mitigating the discharge” and “[i]n some cases, the severity of misconduct may outweigh any mitigation from mental health conditions, including PTSD….”  Also, that “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD… inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  “Liberal 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….”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” 

In considering factor 3, the comments of Commander, 1st Marine Division weighed heavily in my decision.  Again, the Commander was well aware of the Applicant’s medical condition, and he did not find that his condition mitigated or excused his conduct, such that the discharge with an “Other than Honorable” characterization of service was approved.  

Most importantly in my decision to not approve the board’s recommendation is my assessment of factor 4—does the condition outweigh the discharge.  I [SRA] find that the Applicant’s PTSD condition does not outweigh the misconduct.  The Applicant’s conduct that resulted in his discharge was premeditated.  The Applicant’s PTSD condition is the result of his deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and while I commend his service in two deployments, his involvement with illegal substances pre-dates his deployment which suggests his illegal use of banned substances was knowingly, voluntary, and intentional.  Therefore, I [SRA] am exercising caution in assessing the causal relationship of the misconduct to the condition, and not excusing his premeditated misconduct. 

Prior to making my [SRA] decision, the Applicant was advised (reference (h)) of his right to submit comments concerning either the board’s decision or my intent to review that decision.  A copy of the notification was sent to [the Applicant] and his attorney, [Redacted] and in response enclosure (1) was received.  Within enclosure (1), [Applicant’s Attorney] indicates that Applicant has matured since his indiscretion as a young Marine, that he understands his PTSD symptoms, and he has strived to overcome the consequences of his actions.  I [SRA] again commend the Applicant on starting a family and building his professional career, and I consider [Applicant’s Attorney] statements in conjunction with the mandates of reference (e) [10 USC 1553] and (g) [Wilkie Memo] and whether equity, injustice, or clemency require different determination—at this time, without more, they do not.  When I [SRA] evaluate whether clemency should be granted to this Applicant, I note his long history of disciplinary infractions while in service, which resulted in multiple NJPs.  Of note, his 51 day unauthorized absence is especially egregious.  

In summary, the SRA set aside the NDRB’s decision and directed the Applicant’s discharge shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant is requesting an upgrade in characterization due to untreated PTSD triggering substance abuse that led to misconduct and discharge. 

Discussion

Date:  20220308		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from July 2005 to February 2006 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant is requesting an upgrade in characterization due to untreated PTSD triggering substance abuse that led to misconduct and discharge.

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.  Thus, the Board found the Applicant’s service was General (Under Honorable Conditions).

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION 

1. | Does the available record reasonably support PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service? | Yes
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? | Yes

4.

Medical board member comments:

Reviewed military medical treatment records and applicant-provided files.  No VA files found.
.
Abbreviated Timeline:
Enlistment starts – June 2004.  Per MEPS physical, prior MJ use with last use in July 2003.
NJP – Nov 2004 (UA x 51 days)
Reported to 2/1 – Feb 2005
Deployed 13^th MEU/OIF – July 2005
NJP – May 2006 (underage drinking)
Alcohol dependence noted at SARP interview – June 2006.  Requests counseling for PTSD (pg. 107 of FOLDER)
Interviews by BN Surgeons for depressive symptoms – Nov 2006
31^st MEU – Jan 2007
NJP – Aug 2007 (possession charge prior to deployment)
Assigned to 53 Area Guard – Jan 2008
NJP/PTA – March 2008
Separation – July 2008

I find reasonable evidence of the existence of combat-related PTSD along with concomitant self-medication through alcohol and marijuana.  Given the wide range of misconduct, some of which occurred prior to his deployment, the degree of mitigation (if any) will need to be determined by the board.

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 Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his PTSD diagnosis; the nexus between his misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  To best understand the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s separation, the Board fully examined submitted statements and briefs, evidence, Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), medical records, and the opinion of a medical doctor.  Due to the Applicant’s claim of PTSD and in accordance with the guidance published in the Hagel and Kurta Memos, the Board viewed the facts of this case with liberal consideration.  The record shows Applicant was the subject of NJPs for violating Articles 86, 92, 112a, and 134 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant contends that his misconduct was the result of suffering from undiagnosed and untreated PTSD.  The Board conducted a thorough review of all the available information to determine the merits of the Applicant’s issues.  After a thorough review the Board did discern sufficient evidence to support the Applicant’s claim of combat-related PTSD.  The Board also noted that the alcohol and drug use likely stemmed from an attempt to self-medicate the symptoms related to the PTSD.  There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the contention that his misconduct was mitigated by his combat-related PTSD and that liberal consideration according to the Kurta memo would apply in this case.  Consequently, the Board voted 2-1 to grant an upgraded discharge characterization. 

Further, the Board considered the Applicant’s entire military performance and conduct.  While the record did reflect that the Applicant suffered from untreated PTSD during his service, misconduct that predates his combat deployment was found in the record.  The Applicant was found guilty of Unauthorized Absence for 51 days.  While the applicant was not administratively discharged for the unauthorized absence, the Board determined that this was a significant negative aspect of the Applicant’s service and did not fall under the liberal consideration guidelines.  For this reason, the Board did not grant the applicant full relief. 

~~Decision~~

~~After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.~~

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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