ex- PFC, 

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:  20120820	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20140903	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  14  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  50
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.1 (2)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.1 (2)
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  NDSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20140708:	Article 107 (False official statements)
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded:  RESRT    Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20130313:	For assignment to Marine Corps BCP.

- 20140708:	For violation of articles 107 and 112a.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20160419
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  MD16-00059
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:

	    “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 26 November 2013 until present, 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 contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
2	The Applicant contends his mental health condition and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were mitigating factors in his misconduct.
3.	The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.
4.	The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

Discussion

Date:  20221206		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.  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 107 (False official statements) 
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

:  The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

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. 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.  Besides the Applicant’s statements, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration.

Issues 2-4:  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident and the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable; and further contends his mental health condition and PTSD were mitigating factors in his 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 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 – Generalized Anxiety Disorder (diagnosed by the VA prior to his NJP)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (evidence strongly suggests Applicant was motivated by compassion for the Sgt who was importuning him for help to cope with his “back pain,” overcoming the Applicant’s desire to conserve his Rx supply)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes, more or less.	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s treatment and service records in addition to personal appearance testimony on 07 Dec 2022.

The Applicant contends mental health conditions mitigate the misconduct.

CHRONOLOGY includes:

20 Aug 2012: Enlistment; age 17 (parental request).
13 Mar 2013:  Retention Warning Counseling for assignment to the USMC BCP (Body Composition Program), reportedly due to his being “2 pounds above the qualifying limit”)

26 Nov 2013:  AHLTA note 19 yo 6 weeks s/p left (Major) distal sternocleidomastoid muscle release and debridement secondary to long-standing pain and functional difficulty.

14 Oct 2013:  (L) Sternocleidomastoid (SCM) surgical release performed.

26 Nov 2013: AHLTA 6 week post op left SCM muscle release at Ochsner medical Center, NO, LA c/o “ongoing significant pain as well as active spasm with rotation to the right…pathology [tissue] is negative…Patient associates this chronic neck pain to the clavicular fracture that he suffered 5 years ago…”

29 Apr 2014 – 1st Informal PEB results (not locatable).

28 May 2014:

“VA DES PROPOSED RATING:  30% under VASRD Diagnostic Code 5237-5322 for LEFT STERNOCLEIDOMASTOID CALCIFIC TENDINITIS STATUS POST…SURGERY WITH CERVICAL SPINE STRAIN Disability Evaluation System (DES)/PEB Referred Proposed DES Service Connected, Gulf War, Incurred 30%”

The following claimed conditions had not been referred to the PEB; nor is it apparent the PEB felt additional findings of unfitness were indicated.

“Proposed DES Service Connected Disabilities
9400 GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER…DES Claimed…50%

5201 LEFT SHOULDER IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME (NON-DOMINANT[--Claimed at Personal Appearance Hearing by the Applicant to be his Dominant upper extremity]…20%

5242-5243 DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE THORACKC SPINE, LUMBAR SPINE STRAIN, AND INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISEASE OF THE LUMBAR SPINE (BACK PAIN)…10%

03 Jun 2014 – 2nd Informal PEB (Rank LCPL) Category I Unfitting Conditions results:
1.	NECK PAIN AND LIMITED EXTENSION DUE TO LEFT STERNOCLEIDOMASTOID CALCIFIC TENDINITIS AND CHRONIC PAIN  VA CODE 5237-5322 30%/PDRL

08 Jul 2014:  Retention Warning for NJP proceedings concerning violation of Article 112a (Wrongful use, passion, etc., of controlled substance…wrongful distribution of prescription medication (Norco [hydrocodone and another substance, such as acetaminophen 4]) to another individual in violation of SECNAVINST 5300.28E (para 5c), and Article 107 (False official statements) when you made an official statement, known to be false or misleading as determined by findings of facts in the Command Investigation (ICO Sgt J. A. K.) conducted by Captain J.A.D.

08 Jul 2014 – NJP (Arts 112a, 107)

31 Aug 2014:  Effective date listed on a 12 Feb 2020 VA “ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION DATA, SCREEN <11>…[indicating a combined disability rating of 80% including the following specifically rated conditions:]…
9400-NEUROSIS, GENERAL ANXIETY DISORDER (50% SCI)…
5322-NECK INJURY (30% SC)
5201-LIMITED MOTION OF ARM (20% SC)…
5252-LIMITED FLEXION OF THIGH (10% SC)
5243-INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME (10% SC)”

03 Sep 2014:  Separation Date per DD214 with OTH Characterization and RE-4B [unable to obtain a clear explanation of the latter].

POST DISCHARGE ADJUSTMENT: Credible in all areas, including following a family tradition of working in Prison security and achieving a stable marriage and family adjustment (also, see below).

12 Feb 2020:  Date of VA “ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION DATA, SCREEN detailed in earlier entry noted above.

COMMENT:

The Applicant, a Marine PFC with no combat deployment history, was found guilty of violations of Articles 112a and 107 on 8 July 2014 and subsequently separated.  Review of the medical records shows that he suffered a left neck strain in Mar 2013.  After a protracted period of workup and treatment, the Applicant underwent surgery to remove a calcified portion of the distal sternocleidomastoid muscle tendon in October of 2013 due to inadequately controlled head and neck pain.  Failure of post op medical treatment to restore the Applicant’s fitness for full duty resulted in his referral to the PEB resulting in a finding of unfit and placement on the PDRL at a 30% disability (as determined by the VA) for his left shoulder condition.  Additionally, prior to separation, the VA awarded compensation for Generalized Anxiety Disorder, left shoulder impingement, and degenerative disc disease.

During the period pending medical separation, the Applicant became embroiled in a conspiracy to distribute his pain medications (reportedly 2-3 Norco pills) which his testimony, this afternoon, attributes to a combination of evidence strongly suggests the Applicant was motivated by compassion for the Sgt who was repeatedly importuning him for pharmacologic help to cope with his severe “back pain,” overcoming the Applicant’s professed desire to conserve his Rx supply.  Additionally, he provided credible testimony indicating he neither sought nor received any (including financial) compensation for the few pills he provided to his Sgt.  In his application to the NDRB, the Applicant contends that his chronic pain and generalized anxiety disorder mitigate his misconduct, though historic evidence and current testimony provide little indication that either condition played a significant role in his behavior.  It is, additionally, noted the Applicant reported an exemplary post separation adjustment characterized by successful occupational, marital/family social achievement including a stable marriage, an active role in raising his three children, and community service.  Moreover, he has found individual talking therapy to be most useful in resolving longstanding interpersonal issues including adjustment to a dysfunctional family of origin.	

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  In this case, the Board found insufficient evidence in the record for any indications of, or diagnosis for, a Mental Health Diagnosis stemming from PTSD, which would substantiate a causal connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and challenges incurred from a mental health condition.  

In this case, the Applicant was prescribed medication for pain management after undergoing surgery for an injury sustained while in MOS school aboard Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL.  During the course of his recovery the Applicant acquiesced to his noncommissioned officer (NCO) who requested some of the Applicant’s pain medication for his own consumption.  On a few occasions he gave his Norco pills to his NCO out of compassion for the Sergeant who was on limited duty for his own separate medical issues.  The Applicant also stated to the Board during his hearing he felt pressured to do so because the Marine was senior to him and was his NCO in charge.  Unbeknownst to the Applicant, the NCO was also pressuring other junior Marines on limited duty for their medication as well.  Ultimately, the command became aware of these events and initiated a command investigation.  The Applicant was questioned by a Marine Captain and initially denied any wrongdoing, but subsequently acknowledged giving his prescription medication to his NCO.  The Applicant was taken to NJP on 8 Jul 2014 and found guilty of violating UCMJ Articles 107 and 112a.  While the Applicant was found unfit for duty by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and recommended for a permanent disability retirement from active duty with a 30 percent combined disability rating, he was subsequently notified for administrative separation for his misconduct.  While the NDRB acknowledged the PEB’s findings and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) documentation indicating a 50 percent disability rating for a generalized anxiety disorder stemming from the Applicant’s injury, the Board did not find generalized anxiety mitigating.  Furthermore, the NDRB is not bound by VA decisions; more specifically, Applicant’s GAD did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge.  

Nonetheless, 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 thoroughly reviewed the totality of the Applicant’s military service using his service records, DD Form 293, and information presented during his hearing and found the characterization of the Applicant’s service inequitable.  The Board acknowledged the strong likelihood the Applicant was moved to help his NCO out of compassion with no intent to distribute a controlled substance for monetary gain.  However, the Board still held the Applicant equally responsible for his misconduct and his Sergeant’s misconduct of improperly using prescription medication.  Reviewing the non-felonious nature of the misconduct; the relative junior status of the Applicant vis-à-vis the Sergeant; and the underlying reason behind the Applicant’s transfer of ~2-3 pills, in relation to the assigned characterization/narrative for discharge, the Board determined that the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief based on either equity or clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.  Clemency also includes substitution for good cause an administrative discharge for an executed punitive discharge or dismissal in select cases.  Therefore, the Board found the Applicant’s original characterization of service inequitable and voted unanimously to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge characterization to Under Honorable Conditions (General). 

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 partial .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, 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.