Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20210202
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:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:			Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20070829	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20110505	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  08  Month(s)  07  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  82
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.2 (14)  Behavior/Conduct:  3.7 (14)
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  NDSM GWOTSM LoA (2) 

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  Unable to determine
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

SPCM:  1

          - 20100604:     Article 80 (Attempts) 
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 2 specifications
Sentence:  60 days  60 days 

NJP:  1

- 20110304:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD       Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20090112:	For failing to be at your appointed place of duty.

- 20101130:	For your illegal use of a controlled substance, specifically testing positive for Marijuana (THC) as identified through urinalysis confirmed by the NAVDRUGLAB MSG 20101118.

- 20110309:	For violation of articles 92 and 112a, disobeyed a lawful order by wrongfully using a controlled substance, specifically Marijuana (20ngs) as indicated on NAVDRUGLAB MSG 20101118.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5”
	  “MISCONDUCT”

The NDRB will recommend to 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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The Applicant states that his post-service conduct and achievements are deserving of consideration of an upgrade. 
2.  The Applicant contends that his discharge is unjust as he did not receive due process in the execution of his administrative 
     processing.
3.  The Applicant states that his discharge is unjust because he did not commit the misconduct that led to his administrative 
     separation processing. 
4.  The Applicant states that a medical condition he suffered from affords mitigation to the misconduct that led to his 
     administrative processing for separation.

Discussion

Date:  202203		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.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

  for  of the UCMJ:
Article 80 (Attempts)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

:  The Applicant states that his post-service conduct and achievements are deserving of consideration of an upgrade. 

The Applicant suggests his post-service achievements as evidenced by his college attendance warrants consideration for an upgrade.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question.  Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.  Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board did not grant relief based on this issue. 

Issue 2:  The Applicant contends that his discharge is unjust as he did not receive due process in the execution of his administrative processing.

The Applicant contends that his discharge is unjust as he did not receive due process in the execution of his administrative processing. Specifically, the Applicant raised an issue pertaining to the counsel he received from his Defense Attorney who formerly served as a Prosecutor in his June 2010 Special Court-Martial. Claiming the counsel reflected bias against him, due to the Applicant not receiving a punitive discharge from his court-martial, he stated that the legal advice was not consistent with what others in his situation would of received. In review of the record, the NDRB was not able to identify any conflict of interest  that the Applicant’s legal counsel for his administrative separation exercised nor was there advice provided that was not consistent with other cases. The Applicant signed a pre-trial agreement and his command executed the agreement without deviation. The treatment of the Applicant was not atypical and was common to the adjudication of other service drug policy violations. The record of evidence also substantiated that this pre-trial agreement was agreed to by the Applicant with the advice of counsel. Thus the NDRB found no merit in the Applicant’s claim that he was not afforded due process. His assigned counsel acted in accordance with all professional ethical standards and the Applicant consciously signed a pre-trial agreement understanding all circumstances and potential outcomes. Relief based on this issue is denied. 

Issue 3:  The Applicant states that his discharge is unjust because he did not commit the misconduct that led to his administrative separation processing.  

The Applicant contends that he did not commit the misconduct that led to his administrative separation and UOTHC discharge characterization. The Applicant was separated for violation of Article 112a after he tested positive for THC in a command urinalysis in November 2005. The Applicant claimed he did not use THC and could not explain how he would of tested positive. Only statements of denial were provided by the Applicant and he had no witnesses, documentation or credible explanation for why his test was not accurate. Without being able to substantiate his statement the NDRB found no grounds to discount or ignore the positive test result reported by his command that was used to formalize his charge for violating the UCMJ and the service drug policy. Relief is denied for this issue. 

Issue 4:  The Applicant states that a medical condition he suffered from affords mitigation to the misconduct that led to his administrative processing for separation.  

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 partially mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience partially outweighed 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 – substance use disorder 	
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 applicant’s military treatment records.

Timeline:
-	Enlistment – Aug 2007 (Entered on a drug waiver)
-	Back Injury – Feb 2008 
-	1st LIMDU – Dec 2008 (6 months)
-	Back pain managed by Dr. Sharts of ECU Neurosurgery, 3 epidural steroid injections/physical & chiro therapy
-	2nd LIMDU – April 2009
-	Concern for narcotic use – Jun 2009
-	R L4-S5 hemi-laminectomy, R L5-S1 discetomy in Aug 2009
-	3rd LIMDU – October 2009.  PEB started
-	Safety Check at NHCL for suicidal ideation.  Applicant admits to using THC for back pain.  Nov 2009
-	Discharged from ECU Neurosurgery.  Diagnosis of “Failed Back Syndrome” – Dec 2009
-	+ UA for THC – 22 Dec 2009
-	Referral to Wilmington, NC clinic for narcotic/benzodiazepine addiction & marijuana abuse – Dec 2009
-	Completes treatment in Feb 2010
-	Special Court Martial (Art 80/112a) – Jun 2010.  Medical board placed on hold. 60 days confinement/restriction, reduction to E2, forfeiture $1000/month x 3 months
-	Pain Management engaged – Sept 2010
-	Medical board process resumes – Nov 2010
-	Pretrial confinement – Nov 2010
-	Pretrial Agreement Signed – Feb 2011
-	Squadron NJP for Art 112a – March 2011 (+ test Nov 2010).  Administrative separation initiated.
-	Separation – May 2011

I found evidence of poorly-supervised narcotic and benzodiazepine prescribing, from Oct 2008-Dec 2009, for the treatment of this patient’s chronic lower back pain and radiculopathy.  Given these medication’s potential for addiction and abuse as well as the chronic nature of the applicant’s pain, I believe a nexus may be drawn between his mental health and his misconduct.

Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.

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.  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.

The Applicant contends that the misconduct associated with his administrative separation is mitigated by a medical condition that he was being treated for while on active duty.  During his tenure on active duty the Applicant sustained a significant back injury to which his treatment included the prescription of opioids for pain management.  Due to the nature of the Applicant’s case and the specific reference to a medical condition the NDRB included a licensed Medical Officer who reviewed all treatment and assigned prescriptions. 

Chronic pain conditions require multiple modalities of treatment including non-pharmacologic (e.g, physical therapy), procedural (e.g., steroid injections), and pharmacologic therapies (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, neuropathic pain medications, and opioids).  The board recognizes that the response to pain treatment varies from person to person.  Additionally, the board recognizes the potency and high addictive potential of opioid medications (e.g., Percocet, Oxycontin, MS Contin).  After a thorough review of available medical records, the board did find sufficient evidence of a link between the  prescription drug use and the Applicant’s continued use of marijuana.  Thus considering the Applicant’s above average performance, and the absence of misconduct prior to his treatment for his back injury, the NDRB did identify mitigation to his use of marijuana.  Specifically, evidence of poorly-supervised narcotic and benzodiazepine prescribing, from Oct 2008-Dec 2009, for the treatment of this patient’s chronic lower back pain and radiculopathy.  Given these medication’s potential for addiction and abuse as well as the chronic nature of the applicant’s pain, the NDRB identified a nexus between his mental health and his misconduct.  Being that these circumstances were beyond the control of the Applicant the NDRB determined that relief in the form of an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was appropriate. 

In summary, 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 his overall service, which included above average enlistment Proficiency and Conduct marks prior to the period of his poorly supervised pain management treatment.  The Board also considered that his misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career, but was mitigated by issues beyond his control as he was prescribed medications that made him vulnerable to addiction and abuse.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service was 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  MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) with a corresponding separation code of HKK, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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