ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210526
Characterization of Service Received:   General (under HONORABLE conditions)
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6214 [BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE] 

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:  20070430	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20110429	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  00  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  61
Deployment/Operation: 

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

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  GCM CAR NMCAM ACM(w/2 Bronze Service Stars) SSDR(2nd Award) ICM(w/1 Bronze Service Star) GWOTSM NDSM CoC MM(x2) 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20110106:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: RESRT    Suspended:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20110106:	For violation of Article 92.

- 20110203:	For violation of Article 86. 

- 20110628:	For desertion from 20110430 to 20110624. 

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.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ch2), effective 06 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION.

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 discharge was unjust because he was given a DD-214 showing an Honorable discharge.
2.	The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust because his punitive discharge was set aside by the Appellate Court.
3.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20230615		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 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and 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 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 

  for  of the 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)

Issue 1.	The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust because he was given a DD-214 showing an Honorable 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.  

When reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In this case, the Board found the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  The Applicant claims that he was given a DD-214 with an Honorable Characterization of discharge upon his end of active service date. While the Applicant was given a DD-214 with an Honorable discharge on his EAS and this DD-214 is in his official record however, the Applicant was on legal hold at the time and should never have been given this DD-214. Additionally, the record shows that the Applicant forged documents stating that he was not on legal hold and that he was cleared to leave the active ranks by his command. With full knowledge of the inaccuracies on this DD-214, the Applicant signed for it and departed for home. This act was a willful violation of the UCMJ and entered the Applicant into an unauthorized absence status. 

Given the fact that the Applicant knowingly and willingly falsified document in order to receive this DD-214 and that the Applicant knew that he was on legal hold and that this DD-214 should have never been issued, the NDRB found that this argument was without merit.

2.	The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust because his punitive discharge was set aside by the Appellate Court.

Evidence in the Applicant’s record shows that the Applicant’s Bad Conduct Discharge was set aside upon review by the Appellate Court. The Applicant contends that the Appellate Court’s actions rate an Honorable Discharge based on the Court’s findings. When the Appellate Court sets aside a punitive discharge it is incumbent upon the command to determine the appropriate discharge characterization. The Appellate Court does not have the authority to change a discharge characterization but to only set a punitive discharge aside. 

According to the Marine Corps Separations Manual, when a punitive discharge is set aside, the Marine Corps will notify the member via official mail that he or she will be the subject of an administrative separation board if required. The servicemember has 30 days to respond to the official correspondence. Failure to respond is considered a waiver of rights. In this case, the official correspondence to the Applicant stating that he was recommended for a separations board was not part of the record. In this case, the NDRB must presume regularity in the affairs of the Government. To support this determination, the Applicant’s separation code shows that he did waive his right to a separation board indicating his failure to respond within the 30 day time period. Additionally, the Applicant’s discharge would have been screened and approved by a Staff Judge Advocate and was found to be legally sufficient for separation.

Issue 3.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor 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 mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION

1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes – PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol and Polysubstance Use Disorders	
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, military service records, testimony, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant, a Marine combat veteran, was discharged in 2011 for misconduct (drug abuse and desertion).  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends that combat-related PTSD contributed to the poor decision making involved in his misconduct.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been granted 10% service-connected disability, though not for mental health.

Brief timeline:
30 Apr 2007 – Enlistment
13 Oct 2007 – Arrived for duty – 2nd BN/2nd Marines
23 Apr – 13 Nov 2008 – OIF deployment
20 Oct 2009 – 12 Jan 2010 – OEF deployment (MEDEVAC’d)
22 Nov 2009 – Date of intensive firefight/loss of a fellow Marine
Feb 2010 – Completion of SARP IOP (Benzodiazepine Dependence)
Mar 2010 – “Back on Track” PTSD program completion
Apr – May 2010 – CPT program
24 Aug 2010 – LIMDU (PTSD, ended Nov 2010)
06 Jan 2011 – NJP (Art 92)
16 Mar 2011 – Surgery for MRSA infection in arm
29 Apr – 24 Jun 2011 – UA status
29 Jun – 23 Nov 2011 – Confinement
25 Aug 2011 – SPCM (Art 86, 92, 112a)
23 Nov 2011 – Discharge

Conclusions:
1.	Preservice substance and alcohol use disorders – Following an alcohol-related arrest, the Applicant attended a twenty-one day inpatient rehabilitation followed by a thirty day outpatient substance and alcohol rehabilitation, the last of which ended approximately one to two months prior to enlistment.  In addition to alcohol, drugs during this period included benzodiazepines, cocaine, and prescription opioid medications.  This bears relevance because these are the exact medications involved in the Applicant’s misconduct.  
2.	Afghanistan combat exposure – The Applicant experienced direct combat operations on multiple occasions.  Sadly, during one firefight, a subordinate Marine was KIA and another was seriously wounded.  Following this specific incident, the Applicant was seen in theater for combat stress and placed on a psychotropic medication.  However, I did not find any indication in the eventual MEDEVAC paperwork that the Applicant was removed from the theater for PTSD.
3.	Benzodiazepines and suspected heroin possession – according to the MEDEVAC paperwork and subsequent medical visits, the Applicant was found to have been acutely intoxicated by command members.  A subsequent search of his gear revealed copious numbers of  benzodiazepines to include 752 tablets of diazepam 10mg (trade name Valium), 100 tablets of diazepam 5mg, 2429 tablets of alprazolam (trade name Xanax) of varying doses and 2 syringes/needles with unknown content (though thought to have been heroin.  Note: In his testimony, the Applicant denied possession of the syringes).  Further investigation revealed the Applicant had obtained these drugs from a pharmacy in a local Afghan market.  Due to the intoxication and sheer volume of drugs found, the Applicant was MEDEVAC’d back to CONUS for drug treatment.  
4.	PTSD & Substance abuse rehabilitation – Once the Applicant returned to CONUS, he underwent (in back-to-back sequence) SARP IOP, “Back on Track” PTSD, and Cognitive Processing Therapy from February to May 2010.  However, as indicated by his testimony and the medical record, treatment efforts for both conditions were complicated by the Applicant’s resumption of use, likely as early as March – April of 2010.  Later SARP visits document the Applicant’s use of benzodiazepines, cocaine, and opioid medications, the same drugs for which he underwent rehabilitation preservice and (for benzodiazepines) SARP IOP.  
5.	Limited Duty – I did note one period of LIMDU from August – November of 2010 for PTSD.  Though scheduled to remain in effect through early 2011, the Applicant requested early termination of LIMDU (with some light duty provisions for sleep medications) in November.  At the time of his March 2011 misconduct (IV drug use complicated by a skin infection/septic shock) and April – June 2011 (UA period), the Applicant was considered fit-for-full-duty.  
6.	Assault/mistreatment – the Applicant contends that, upon return to 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, he was assaulted by fellow Marines and offered harsh treatment during his day-to-day encounters (e.g., moldy pillow, etc.).  I found recounting of command-level stressors in the medical record, though I did not see evidence of assault (ED visits, radiology studies, etc.).  While I won’t discount an adverse command climate, I did note that his lead psychologist commented that there were no restrictions on the Applicant resuming duty at 2/2.
7.	Final conclusions:  In reviewing all the evidence, including the Applicant’s testimony, I rely heavily on the contemporary psychological opinions in this case.  As opined by his lead psychiatrist, though the Applicant has PTSD, the greater issue in this case was the Applicant’s substance dependence.  The 2019 NDRB decision has already applied liberal consideration to his case (resulting in a significant change in characterization and narrative reason for discharge) and I do not see supporting evidence for further mitigation.	

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included multiple incidents of drug use and a significant time of unauthorized absence; this was a willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of PTSD, coupled with additional post-service documentation provided by the Applicant, support the Applicant’s contention that his PTSD was a mitigating factor associated with the in-service misconduct.  Moreover, the NDRB determined that the unique circumstances of this individual case, coupled with the documented PTSD diagnosis, and the Applicant’s service in combat, warranted additional consideration in the determination of overall characterization of service.

A review of the Applicant’s official and medical record show multiple combat deployments as an infantryman to both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Applicant claims that his drug use was a result of his PTSD that developed due to these deployments. The NDRB Medical Officer noted that the Applicant stated that he had been using illegal drugs prior to his enlistment into the Marine Corps. Additionally, a medical note found in the record states that the doctor at the time did not believe that the Applicant’s drug use was a result of PTSD but due to a preexisting addiction. The Applicant’s drug use was pervasive throughout his record. As stated, his use of benzos started well before his enlistment, carried over to his deployment to Afghanistan, resulted in a hospitalization post deployment, and carried over into his post-service. 

The NDRB noted that the Applicant was given liberal consideration during his previous document review. This resulted in an upgrade to a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service with a corresponding narrative of Secretarial Authority. Given the nature of the Applicant’s drug use and his unauthorized absence, the NDRB could not find additional compelling information that would constitute further liberal consideration.  Specifically, weighing (using the scales of liberal consideration) the Applicant’s overall performance and conduct against the standards for characterization of service, the Board held that the Applicant’s mental health issues mitigated but did not completely exonerate his repeated and willful misconduct and that the characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) is proper and equitable.  

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, 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.  (See www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions).  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost – including inpatient or crisis residential care for up to 30 days and outpatient care for up to 90 days.  Veterans do not need to be enrolled in the VA system to use this benefit.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations. 

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

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost; you can use this benefit regardless of your discharge status, or enrollment in VA health care.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance, see Find your nearest VA medical center.