, ex- Pvt, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210805
Characterization of Service Received:   BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   COURT-MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 1105 [COURT-MARTIAL] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	HONORABLE
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED 
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19990608	Age at Enlistment:  17 (PARENTAL CONSENT)
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20070201	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  07  Year(s)  07  Month(s)  25  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  32
Deployment/Operation: NONE

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.6 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.0 (NFIR)   

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle MM Pistol NDSM GWOTSM

Periods of UA:  20000605-20001015 (133 days)
Periods of CONF:  20010119-20010304 (45 days)
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   Retention Warning Counseling: NONE

NJP:  2

- 20000216:	Article 86 (Unauthorized absence 0000117-0000119, 2 days)
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: FOP RESRT EPD  Suspended:  NONE

- 20001031:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: RIR RESTR  FOP Suspended:  FOP

SPCM:  1

- 20010118:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 20000605-20011015 (133 Days)
	Article 87 (Missing movement)
	Sentence: BCD CONF 5 MONTHS  20010119-20010304 (45 days)
	CA:  In the special court-martial case of Private Christopher E. Parker II 
	568 99 7271/3531 U.S. Marine Corps, tried on 5 & 20 December 2000 and 18 January 2001, at, California, the sentence is approved and, except for the bad conduct discharge, ordered executed, but all confinement in excess of time served as of 5 March 2001 is hereby remitted without further action.  
	
	The Base Brig, Marine Corps Base, , is designated as the place of confinement.
	
	Prior to taking action, I considered the comments in the Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation, the Addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation, the clemency matters submitted by detailed defense counsel in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 1105, MCM, (2000 Ed.) dated 21 January 2001 and 6 August 2001, and the entire record of trial.
  
	The record of trial is forwarded to the Navy-Marine Appellate Review Activity, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, for review by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.  

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20090709
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: MD09-01323	
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

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 1 September 2001 until 5 June 2007.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his mental health condition mitigates his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20230125		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 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

  for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 87 (Missing movement)

:  The Applicant contends that his mental health condition mitigates his misconduct. The Applicant is seeking a change to his characterization of service. 

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 may excuse or mitigate 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, undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder (Military):  None; PTSD & PANIC DISORDER (diagnosed 13 years post discharge (VA).	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes (likely, Adjustment Disorder)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes (mitigating but not exculpating)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unknown	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

Education Level:  GED (General Educational Development Test)

Much juvenile delinquency.

21 May 1999—MEPS:  

08 Jun 1999—ENLISTMENT for 4 years  @ age 17 (PARENTAL CONSENT):  AFQT 32

- NJP 20000216:	Article 86 (Unauthorized absence 0000117-0000119, 2 days)
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: FOP RESRT EPD  Suspended:  NONE

- NJP20001031:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: RIR RESTR  FOP Suspended:  FOP
- 20010118—SPCM: 
     Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 20000605-20011015 (133 Days)
     Article 87 (Missing movement)
     Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.)
     Sentence: BCD CONF 5 MONTHS  20010119-20010304 (45 days)
CA:  In the special court-martial case 
	568 99 7271/3531 U.S. Marine Corps, tried on 5 & 20 December 2000 and 18 January 2001, at, the sentence is approved and, except for the bad conduct discharge, ordered executed, but all confinement in excess of time served as of 5 March 2001 is hereby remitted without further action… 
Prior to taking action, I considered the comments in the Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation, the Addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation, the clemency matters submitted by detailed defense counsel in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 1105, MCM, (2000 Ed.) dated 21 January 2001 and 6 August 2001, and the entire record of trial.
  
	The record of trial is forwarded to the Navy-Marine Appellate Review Activity, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, for review by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.  

01 Feb 2007--SEPARATION:   After a 7 year 2 month 1 day enlistment; BCD;JJD2; RE-04; COURT-MARTIAL; MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR.

POST SEPARATION:

14 Mar 2006 Decision on 11Oct 2005—USCAFAF Wash., DC:  
Affirmed USN-MC Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

2022  VA  PTSD/PANIC DISORDER

COMMENT:  Virtually missing are all of the Applicant’s Service Treatment Record; and no health record contemporary with his enlistment shows any indication of evaluation and or treatment for any mental health condition, let alone PTSD, Panic Disorder, etc..  Post discharge record is limited to 2020 vintage VA records indicating treatment for diagnosed PTSD and PANIC DISORDER, but no report of the history or clinical course, and no Compensation & Pension evaluation records (the latter may be due to the Applicant’s BCD).  Absent more documentation, a nexus between the misconduct and the much later diagnosed PTSD and PANIC DISORDER diagnosed by the VA about 13 years later cannot be established.  However, other records reportedly suggest a family of origin that was dysfunctional but populated with the presence of veterans, including a Grandfather (to whom the Applicant had been close) who had been a Marine.  Other information suggested an adolescence characterized by numerous instances of relatively petty offenses and intolerance of the regimentation of High School resulting in his having left, later to obtain a GED—all suggesting difficulties in the Adjustment Disorder-Conduct Disorder diagnostic spectrum. In the USMC, acculturation adjustment issues may well have played a role in his difficulties—but the issue is, further, complicated by his much later claim of having been subject to being physically attacked by 5 fellow Marines on numerous occasions following an alleged command level leak of his having witnessed an apparently shared with his command having awareness of a relatively petty violation on the part of one of the group of 5 when questioned by his command.  Although, reportedly, leaving no outwardly visible bruises or other signs of injury, he reports having been, chronically, fearful of worse beatings had he disclosed the situation to any counseling or medical authority or anyone who could act as a witness to his fears.  This is particularly interesting in light of his response to questioning on his own personal experience with bullying in which he described having played a significant role in defending/saving victims of bullying, particularly, while in “Junior High,” resulting in one of the victims having become his “best friend.”  During the PAH he appeared reluctant to have trouble recalling or sharing details of the above and other historical details.   What emerges are indications of a developmental background of personality traits, perhaps dominated by a relative intolerance of restriction and regulation leading to a personality style characterized by conflicts with legal authorities, quitting school (relying on a GED), and, likely, rendering him awkward in regulated environments and vulnerable to developing adjustment difficulties acculturating to the USMC, though with a determination to clear his name which gave him the perseverance to continue appealing his conviction long enough to achieve a 7-year enlistment and 2 appeals to the BCNR.  Interesting, post discharge, he has done relatively well, eventually settling into a relatively high paying but isolating job “in the oil fields” which he has held for the past 10 years.  Liberal consideration was applied.  Despite the total absence of corroborating objective health, institutional, or personal witness evidence contemporary with or even in close proximity to, the Applicant’s active service, or, even, in the available VA records, the history of prior to enlistment difficulties does suggest a potentially mitigating, if not exculpating nexus to psychological factors pre-disposing difficulties adjusting and acculturating to USMC culture applying liberal consideration.    

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 (UOTH) discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  A Bad-Conduct Discharge (which is an authorized sentence at both a General Court-Martial and a Special Court-Martial) is a severe punishment, although less severe than a dishonorable discharge, and may be adjudged for one who in the discretion of the court warrants severe punishment for bad conduct even though such bad conduct may not include the commission of serious offenses of a military or civil nature. 

In this case, the Board found clemency was warranted to change to an UOTH.  The Applicant enlisted at age 17 in 1999 with parental consent.  The Applicant came in on a drug waiver for using marijuana five times and amphetamines once.  He also had a history of juvenile delinquency prior to enlisting.  During his time in service The Applicant received two NJPs and a Special Court Martial.  The Applicant’s second NJP was for a violation of Article 112a.  The Applicant tested positive for MDMA.  Despite requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation for the 112a violation, the Applicant was scheduled to deploy with his unit to Okinawa.  Following his NJP, and prior to deployment, the Applicant went UA.  The Applicant contends that he went UA because he was being harassed and assaulted by other members of his unit for revealing the misconduct of one of his peers during direct questioning from his chain of command.  The Applicant contends that this harassment caused his mental health condition and absent it, he would not have gone UA or been separated.  This contention ignores the fact that the Applicant was already facing administrative separation for his illegal drug use.  After returning from being UA for 133 days in October 2000, and missing movement to Okinawa, the Applicant pled guilty at a SPCM via a plea agreement in which he would avoid a BCD and confinement of longer than 30 days.  The judge voided the agreement and sentenced him to five months confinement and a BCD at bench trial with no jury.  This was the basis for the Applicant’s appeal, which went all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).  The Applicant’s attorney also requested clemency.  The Applicant was on appellate leave in the interim which is why his administrative separation date is in 2007, six years after his SPCM.  The CAAF upheld the BCD but did not require the Applicant to serve out the remainder of the confinement.  The CA had remitted confinement after 44 days.  The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; any possible nexus between his drug use and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  The Board found a nexus between the Applicant’s likely case of adjustment disorder and his misconduct that was mitigating but not exculpating.  Additionally, in its discussion with the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant is gainfully employed and a law-abiding citizen.  The facts of the Applicant’s case have been thoroughly examined by the highest military court in the land in the over 20 years since the events occurred.  In consideration for all these factors, to include weighing the severity of the misconduct in relation to the assigned characterization/narrative for discharge, the Board determined that a change in characterization of service from a Bad Conduct Discharge to Under Other than Honorable Conditions is appropriate.

Decision
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  COURT-MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of JJD2, 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.  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.