ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210203
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   COURT-MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 1005 [COMPLETION OF SERVICE OBLIGATION] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED 
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 		Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20051011	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:  05 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20100126	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  01  Month(s)  26  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  55
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: NFIF (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: NFIR (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports: 

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

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  20090107 - 20090111, 05 days
Periods of CONF:  20090120 - 20090323, 63 days

SCM:  NONE CIVIL ARREST:  NONE  CC:  NONE

NJP:  2

- 20071221:	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded:       Suspended:     

- 20080306:	Article 107 (False official statements) 
	Article 128 (Assaults) 
	Article 134 (General article) 
	Awarded:       Suspended:     

SPCM: 1

- 20090210:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)  x2 
	Sentence: To be confined for a period of 120 days and to be discharged from the service with a bad-conduct discharge.
	CA: The sentence is approved and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, which requires appellate review, will be executed. Confinement in excess of 90 days will be suspended for the period of confinement served plus six months thereafter, unless sooner vacated.

Retention Warning Counseling:  8

- 20060420: 	For substandard academic performance during accession level training and constant minor disciplinary infractions and immature conduct towards senior Marines. Specifically, you have displayed a lack of effort in your academic studies resulting in substandard formal evaluation test scores.

- 20060601:	For substandard academic performance during accession level training. You have been dropped from training as an Aviation Logistics Tactical lnfom1ation Specialty (MOS 6694) specialist and will be redesignated at the discretion of the Marine Corps.

- 20071207:	For failure to report to your appointed place of duty specifically on 7 Dec, 2007 at 0600.

- 20080307:	For violations of article 128, 134-13, 107 of the UCMJ.

- 20080508:	For counseled this date concerning my failure to follow your aftercare program. Specific recommendation for corrective action is follow all rules and articles of the UCMJ. Do not consume alcohol for the duration of your (aftercare program/ military career, as you have been diagnosed alcohol dependent by a medical officer).

- NFIR:	For forcefully grabbing his ex-girlfriend by the wrist and tearing her cell phone in half. Your total lack of self-control and judgment have dishonored yourself and the Marine Corps.

- 20080730:	For counseling this date concerning my wrongful drug involvement - (Tl IC 15 ng/ml) usage, as identified through urinalysis on (080616, and confirmed by NavDrugLab San Diego.

- 20091208:	For administrative separation. Your actions demonstrate poor judgment and a lack of responsibility as to bring discredit upon yourself and the Marine Corps.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ch 2), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his undiagnosed PTSD was a catalyst to his actions that led to his discharge from the Marine Corps.
Discussion

Date:  20211007		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 16 March 2006 to 29 September 2007 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 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
Article 107 (False official statements)
Article 128 (Assaults)
Article 134 (General article)

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

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends that his undiagnosed PTSD was a catalyst to his actions that led to his discharge from the Marine Corps.

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 did not mitigate 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 PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?	Yes – Adjustment Disorder, Polysubstance Abuse Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records.

The Applicant contends PTSD mitigates his misconduct.

Abbreviated Timeline
11 Oct 2005 – Enlistment
~ April 2006 – Diagnosis of dysthymia (academic setting)
Mar – Sept 2007 – OIF Deployment
21 Dec 2007 – NJP (Art 111, BAC .123)
6 Mar 2008 – NJP (Arts 128, 134, 107)
17 Mar – 11 Apr 2008 – Level III SARP treatment
10 Feb 2009 – SPCM (Art 112a x 2 – 3 total specifications)

In reviewing the information in the service records, I focused attention on possible undiagnosed PTSD.  Per the timeline, the Applicant’s alcohol intake appears to have increased after his 2007 deployment and alcohol factored into his first two acts of misconduct.  Several documents present information on the Applicant’s mental health post-deployment, a set of PDHA/PDHRAs from the deployment and his residential SARP treatment records.  Notes:
-	PDHA (performed in-theater) shows stationing at Al-Taqaddum Air Base with a health rating of “very good.”  Notable negatives include no direct engagement or seeing wounded, killed, or dead persons during the deployment.  Notable positives include ten visits to sick call and answering “yes” to the question: “During this deployment, did you ever feel that you were in great danger of being killed?”
-	PDHRA was entirely negative (likely typo on identified concerns as none were listed)
-	SARP – Formal evaluations were conducted during the residential period, all negative for symptoms of PTSD.

Based on this information, I do not find a nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.  Further, the sum of the Applicant’s misconduct denotes violent tendencies, including an assault on his girlfriend.  As stated in the Wilke memorandum, “[r]elief is generally more appropriate for nonviolent offense than for violent offenses.	

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records, and found insufficient evidence of PTSD in the Applicant’s service record to support his claim.  As discussed above, the evidence of record did not show that the PTSD was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  That said, the Board recognized Adjustment Disorder, Polysubstance Abuse Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder were factors, but that these conditions did not rise to a level as to warrant full mitigation or exoneration.  

However, 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.  A Bad-Conduct Discharge (which is an authorized sentence at both a General Court-Martial and a Special Court-Martial) is a severe punishment, although less severe than a dishonorable discharge, and may be adjudged for one who in the discretion of the court warrants severe punishment for bad conduct even though such bad conduct may not include the commission of serious offenses of a military or civil nature.

In this case, the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the Board considered the totality of the Applicant’s service both his misconduct and also his overall service which included completion of a deployment from 16 March 2006 to 29 September 2007 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  Further, the characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB noted the Applicant’s difficulty in excelling in the Marine Corps as noted by his eight retention warning Counselings, two NJPs, and final SPCM.  However, the Board also recognized that despite his misconduct, the Marine Corps consciously retained the Applicant for a period nearing four years.  It was not until the Applicant’s illicit drug use and his Command’s likely escalation of punishment to Special Court Martial that the Applicant’s Command determined that it was in the best interest to separate the Applicant prior to his five-year contract.  

In review of the Applicant’s misconduct, the NDRB identified the repetitive nature of his commissions, but did not perceive acts that rose to the level of felonious misconduct.  To be exact, the Board had concerns with the facts surrounding his relationship/treatment of his girlfriend, but the Board also presumed his Command would have separated him rather than issued an NJP had the Applicant’s action caused physical injury or harm.  The Board viewed the Applicant’s misconduct as disciplinary infractions that compromise the rank and structure of a military organization, but none that jeopardized the reputation of the Marine Corps or endangered the lives of others.  While the record of evidence does reflect disciplinary issues that required corrective action and punishment, the acts do not merit an enduring BCD.  In review of the issues raised by the Applicant and in context of his complete record of service, the Board determined clemency was warranted. 
    
More specifically, clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The NDRB found sufficient mitigating and extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  Specifically, the Board recognized the Applicant’s nearly four years of military service which included a deployment in support of OIF; the Applicant’s Command purposely retained the Applicant despite his misconduct for a period nearing four years; he was separated for drug use and not a violent crime involving theft, assault or serious moral turpitude; and finally, although the Board did not find a nexus (or sufficient mitigation and certainly not exoneration), it did liberally consider the Applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Polysubstance Abuse Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder.  Thus, holistically reviewing the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his four years of service; and the nature of his misconduct vis-à-vis the appropriate characterization of service, the Board held clemency was warranted and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) is appropriate. 

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  COURT-MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of JJE2, 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.