ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210622
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   COURT-MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 1105 [COURT-MARTIAL] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to: REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20080211	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20130612	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  07  Month(s)  02  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  55
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.3 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.0 (NFIR)  
Fitness Reports: 

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

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

SCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20090731:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded:    Suspended:  NONE

SPCM:  1

- 20120530:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) x3
	Sentence: RIR E-1 CONF FOP BCD
	CA:

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20090731:	For violation of Article 92.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 UNTIL present.

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 is inequitable because his drug use was caused by an in-service medical condition.
2.	The Applicant contends his mental health was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20230504		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from September 2009 to May 2010 in support of Operation ENDURING 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.) 

:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his drug use was caused by an in-service medical condition; and further contends his mental health 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 outweighed 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, likely undiagnosed DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Due to a Physical Condition (Recurrent Left-Sided Small-Stone Nephrolithiasis).	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes.	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes, though less than entirely exculpating.	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Likely, Yes, from a technically legal perspective, it received consideration at trial; however, a mental health referral might have played a helpfully pivotal role, had it been obtained.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	ISSUES:

“III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The appellant also alleges that his trial defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. He argues four separate deficiencies including that trial defense counsel: (1) failed to advise him of the potential loss of VA health benefits; (2) failed to pursue a psychiatric examination under R.C.M. 706 and forfeited an opportunity to develop evidence in extenuation and mitigation;
(3) suffered an apparent conflict of interest; and (4) failed to present available evidence in extenuation and mitigation.” 

“To whom it may concern

My name is [Applicant] and I am writing this letter in hope of upgrading my discharge from the United States Marine Corps. I served between the years of 2008-2013. I have one overseas deployment from 2009-2010 OEF. After my return from Afghanistan, I transferred to a new command and was granted Leave to visit family. Before arriving to my leave destination, I became sick and was rushed to a hospital in Arizona. My chain of command was notified, and I was transferred back to San Diego, California with kidney failure and right cerebral calcification due to a severe fever.  After a few days in the hospital I was visited by a command leader of 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine 
Division. I was told by lstSgt X that once I was cleared from the hospital, I will be charged with Unauthorized Absence because my leave destination was supposed to be in NY, but I got sick in Arizona. At this point in time I was not thinking clearly and unfortunately lead me to the biggest mistake of my life. I left the hospital without being cleared and I officially went UA. I was young, in pain, and on prescribed pain medication at time and instead of asking for help or understanding I made the foolish decision to run. I was eventually caught and detain after a few unsuccessful attempts of returning on my own. I was demoted from E-4 to E-1, my pay was cut, I was sentenced to 180 days in confinement (The Brig), and all of the benefits I worked so hard for were stripped. In all, I feel as if I was given a lifetime punishment. 10 years later, I have a wife and 
raising two children, but every day is a constant struggle to provide. With my discharge, I am looked over by good jobs, higher education is extremely difficult to access and most importantly, I've lacked real medical care. There is so much more to me than the mistake I've made a decade ago.”

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

27 Dec 1988—DOB.
 
11 Feb 2008 —ENLISTMENT: @ Age 19

Sep 2009 – May 2010—Afghanistan Deployment: 

13 May 2009—HRE:

01 Jun 2009—“SO Note Written by X@ 01 Jun 2009 1128 PDT… 
“Information: 20 y/o male with no history of stones who presented to the ER 2 days ago with left flank pain. Noted to have stone in the left collecting system and ureter. Was then resent in the Er this AM for flank pain. No urinary issues. NO fever or chills. Has been on pain medication and uroxatral. Was noted to have increased Cr and WBC in the urine with trichomans [probably meant Trichomonas]. HAs been given pain medicaiton, toradol, and rocephin in the ER. Needs stent. No hematuria, urine content normal, urine is unchanged in appearance, and urine odor is normal…‘Needs surgery.’”

05 May 2010—HRE:  “21 YO Left flank pain hx of stones The Patient is a 21 year old male. source ot patient information was patient…reports the following new concern(s): 21 y/o AD male marine c/o R sided "hamstring pain" x 6 months. Onset while running in Afghanistan 12/2009 stepped on a rock. +Swelling, pain. Treated with motrin, rest. Pain improved…Current pain 0/10. ‘Only has pain with sprinting, but i can jog and run without pain.’  In the Marine Corps and currently on active duty. Visit is not deployment-related Location of Deployment:…Family medical history was unknown:… fever and no chills…”

30 Jun 2010—HRE…pt has chronic intermittent HA, unchanged w/ current condition. Dysuria urniation is harder to initiate and painful if the pt pushes too hard. Musculoskeletal symptoms left flank pain.”

07 Jul 2010—HRE:
A/P Written by PANDIT.SANDEEP R@ 07 Jul 2010 1550 PDT
1. NEPHROLITHIASIS:
AFVSS, prior h/o renal calculi and most recently a bout of renal colic 2 wks ago. CT showed no evidence of stone or obstructive uropathy. Nml [Normal] CHEM 11. Pt still has residual pain.
1.) Continue ligh[t] duty 2 more weeks
2.) Cont pain control
3.) Finish ABx
4.) Dietary mods for stone prevention, hydration
5.) If renal colic recurs, recommend pt strain urine to obtain stone for analysis.
6.) ER precautions

Compared with 2 Jul 2009 study which showed Right UTEROVESICAL JUNCTION STONE.

06 Feb 2012—Special Court Martial @ Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton, CA:

The military judge then thoroughly addressed the potential necessity for an inquiry into the appellant's mental capacity or responsibility, ultimately concluding that such an examination was not warranted. RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 706, Manual FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2008 ed.); 
Record at 17-19, 30, 39, 71-73.  The military judge also solicited the-view of Counsel on the necessity of such an exam, discussed the potential benefit of such an examination in the development of evidence in extenuation and mitigation, and later ordered a recess after directing the trial defense counsel… discuss the matter with his superiors and the appellant.  Record at 30, 70-71.  Following a 51-minute recess, trial defense counsel informed the military judge that he and his client ‘believe’ that the appellant's mental responsibility at the times of the misconduct was not an issue and that the appellant was ‘able to participate meaningfully in his own defense.’ Id. At…”

12 Jun 2013 —DISCHARGE:  BCD
ENLISTMENT Details:  JJD2; RE-04; COURT MARTIAL

P181/204 OMPF:

AWARDS

FROM   TO    TYPE CODE ENGLISH
20080222 20080222 2   NN  NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL
20081212 20090111 2   WT  GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL
20100102 20100402 2   CA  AFGHANISTAN CAMPAIGN MEDAL
20100102 20100402 2   SD  SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON
20090916 20100327 4   NZ  NATO MEDAL-ISAF AFGHANISTAN

POST SEPARATION:  The Applicant appears to have settled into a life of commitment in his personal life and motivation to be a productive citizen, seemingly largely thwarted by the adverse employment selection consequences of bearing a BCD.

COMMENT:  While the Applicant acknowledges the major contribution of his poor judgement leading to the BCD discharge currently under appeal, the Service Treatment Record and Pro/Con Marks when not UA suggests a less than exculpating but, nonetheless mitigating nexus assignable between the documented recurrent bouts of pain likely incident to recurrent small-stone nephrolithiasis and the Misconduct resulting in his BCD.  The Applicant’s reported post discharge motivation and evidence of mature responsibility and family commitment despite the social and economic adversity reported above appeared genuine and constitutes an additional favorable element supporting consideration of a discharge upgrade.  

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included one nonjudicial punishments for minor infractions and a Special Court-Martial for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ; this was a failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his Mental Health Diagnosis was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of a Mental Health Diagnosis, coupled with additional post-service documentation provided by the Applicant, support the Applicant’s contention that his Mental Health Diagnosis 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 Mental Health Diagnosis, and the Applicant’s service in combat, warranted additional consideration in the determination of overall characterization of service.  

The Applicant was hospitalized in Texas for kidney failure and cerebral calcification while on leave. The Applicant claims that this hospitalization was due to an injury he had while deployed to Afghanistan. After he was cleared to be transferred back to San Diego for further medical treatment, the Applicant’s command notified him that he was going to be charged with unauthorized absence because his approved leave chit stated that he would be in New York and not in Texas. The Applicant stated that he was going to fly from Texas to New York after visiting some friends in Texas. The Applicant further explains that when he was hospitalized in San Diego he determined that he would go into an unauthorized absence status. The Applicant claims that this decision was not made during a sound state of mind due to the medications that he was on and the amount of physical pain he was in. The Applicant ultimately decided to return to his command, where he was charged with a second violation of Article 86, unauthorized absence. Prior to his adjudication for the two unauthorized absence charges, the Applicant entered into a third unauthorized absence status and returned to New York. Upon his return from his third period of unauthorized absence, the Applicant’s command sent him to trial by court-martial. At his court-martial, the Applicant plead guilty to all the charges and was separated from the Marine Corps with a Bad Conduct Discharge.

During the Applicant’s NDRB hearing, the Applicant stated that he has been struggling with pain and depression since his injury.  He also stated that he has been gainfully employed and is raising a family for over ten years.  The NDRB noted that the Applicant showed signs of significant mental health anguish during the hearing.  This mental health condition was apparent throughout the hearing to all the board members to include the Medical Officer.  Additionally, the NDRB noted that the Applicant’s misconduct was not criminal in nature and was “victimless” as his actions only directly impacted himself and were not violent in nature. The NDRB also determined that the characterization of discharge was not in line with others with similar actions. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s court-martial was proper and in keeping with other violations of similar nature. However, the NDRB determined that the discharge characterization was overly harsh in this case. The NDRB Medical Officer also noted that the Applicant’s physical and mental conditions at the time likely clouded his judgment and somewhat mitigated his actions. 

Given the overly harsh nature of the discharge and the clear nexus between the Applicant’s physical and mental health at the time, the NDRB determined an upgrade was warranted in this case.  Although the Board found insufficient evidence to totally exonerate the Applicant of all of his poor decision making, the Board held that a change in characterization to General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a corresponding narrative of Secretarial Authority was warranted.  

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-4.  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.