ex-Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210827
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	            	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20061114	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20090306	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  23  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  44
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.9 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.9 (2)   
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  SSDR ACM (w/1 Bronze Service Star) NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan GWOTSM NDSM

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20080612:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded:  RIR FOP RESTR  Suspended:  NONE

- 20081208:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded:  RIR FOP RESTR  Suspended:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20080612:	For misconduct resulting in NJP on 20080612. 

- 20081208:	For misconduct resulting in NJP on 20081208.

- 20090304:	For notification of assignment of a reenlistment code of RE-4B due to in service drug abuse. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20100128
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD09-01499
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to qualify for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.
2.	The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable. 

Discussion

Date:  20230109		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 March to October 2008 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 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 

:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to qualify for VA benefits. 

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.  

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 and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.

:  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable.  

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 did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes. History of significant exposure to and use of THC during adolescence; Prescription of antidepressant for “depression” (Military); PTSD (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes for depression; Uncertain regarding undiagnosed PTSD	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Unknown	
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:	PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

23 Aug 1986:  DOB

2001—2004:  Probable period of actual onset of chronic nausea & vomiting [though during current PAH, when reminded of a 2010 STR quoting the Applicant as having reported a 6-year history of episodes of nausea and vomiting, he responded that somehow his recollection was that it had started after enlistment began].

Reared in an environment in which his Father was a “frequent Weed Smoker” resulted in his early introduction to THC.  Hence (and sadly) the report that the Applicant began smoking THC by the time he was attending High School arouses little surprise and raises some question regarding data available during his recruitment/enlistment process. 

ENLISTMENT DATE:  14 Nov 2006…@20yo

03 Nov 2007 STR Entry:  “20 yo ad male with 5-6 year hx of nausea and vomiting [sic]. Was previously dx with GERD, improved symptoms on zantac…”

O8 Oct 2007:  Note reported a 6yr hx N/V (NAUSEA & VOMITING.

28-30 Dec 2008:
Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner Note:  “22 yo AD male with prolonged history of vomiting, followed by mental health while deployed for anxiety. Pt improved with counseling and 30 mg of Remeron/ day. Pt unable to go to counseling regularly due to deployment schedule. Pt also abusing alcohol and sent to unit SACO. Currently under investigation for marijuana use. Request mental health evaluation and treatment for anxiety and substance abuse.”

  “Depression… Mental Health Clinic SEIGEL, ROBERT KOECH Camp Lejeune Naval Medical Center…GWOT: Afghanistan May- Oct 2008…”
  -DIAGNOSES:
AXIS I: Depressive D/O NOS
R/O Alcohol Dependence
R/O Cannabis Abuse
AXIS II: Deferred
AXIS III: Ongoing Neck Pain

30 December 2008:  LT/NC PSYCHIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONER STR entry:  “22 yo AD male with prolonged history of vomiting, followed by mental health while deployed for anxiety. Pt improved with counseling and 30 mg of Remeron/day. Pt unable to go to counseling regularly due to deployment schedule. Pt also abusing alcohol and sent to unit SACO. Currently under investigation for marijuana use. Request mental health evaluation and treatment for anxiety and substance abuse.”

23 Feb 2009 STR entry:  “…22 year old male who is complaining of lower back pain seen on the 20th of February by Dr. Robinson, Vomitting [sic] secondary to mental health seen by Mental Health and Dr. Cash, and his URI Dr. Robinson. Patient states he has not done any sort of rehabilitation for his back as he does not know what to do, has not followed up with Mental Health, however, still taking Remiron [sic] for his vomiting…”

24 Feb 2009:  24 Feb 2009 at Camp Lejeune Naval Medical Center, Deployment Health Services
Included PDHRA for:
Chronic:
• Visit for: military services physical for
separation
• Lower back pain
• Upper respiratory infection
• Depression

04 Mar 2009 Separation PX: 
  -MEDS:  MIRTAZAPINE (REMERON) 15MG ORAL TABLET…QHS
ILLICIT DRUGS: Marijuana

SEPARATION DATE:  06 Mar 2009 after a 2 year 3month 23 day enlistment @ PVT/E1 MOS 0621 Field Radio Operator; incl Afghanistan deployment w1 Bronze Star; OTHER THAN HONORABLE Character of Discharge; HKK1 Separation Code; RE-4B for MISCONDUCT-DRUG ABUSE 

POST SEPARATION:

28 Jan 2010 NDRB Documentary Review:
Docket Number:  MD09-01499
Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.
26 Feb 2010:  NDRB FINDING

09 – 16 Oct 2021 VA: Maryland HCS Discharge Summary:

Discharge Diagnoses:
Unspecified depressive disorder
r/o substance induced mood disorder vs. Adjustment disorder with depressed mood
cocaine use disorder
cannabis use disorder
alcohol use disorder
tobacco use disorder

“Patient is a 35y/o male with a history of depressed mood, PTSD [unfortunately, no details provided], and polysubstance use including alcohol, cannabis, MDMA, and cocaine who was admitted to 6A voluntarily for suicidal ideation with a plan to overdose on drugs in the context of homelessness, financial instability, unemployment, recent death of cousin, and recent overdose 1 week prior to admission on cocaine, alcohol, and molly [3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA)—a synthetic drug that alters mood and perception (awareness of surrounding objects and conditions), chemically sharing properties similar to both stimulants and hallucinogens].

On admission, pt reported experiencing worsening depressive symptoms including low mood, anhedonia, suicidal thoughts and anxiety. He admitted to using Marijuana, Cocaine, and Alcohol daily. He was previously living in Florida, but a friend encouraged him to come to Baltimore so that he would have more social support. When he got to Baltimore, his friend was concerned about his depression and encouraged him to present to the VA Emergency Department. 

He was started on mirtazapine @ 30 mg qHS [an ‘atypical tetracyclic antidepressant,’ and gabapentin [originally an anti-convulsant but useful for other anxiety/mood/ETOH abuse issues].  His mood gradually improved with medication adherence, however anxiety continued to be an ongoing complaint so his gabapentin was increased to 600 mg TID.

On day of discharge, he was euthymic and had a notably bright affect. He was no longer reporting suicidal thoughts with ongoing med adherence. He was hopeful and looking forward to going to the Retreat. He was also future oriented regarding applying for Medicaid insurance and was considering applying for disability or tDAP.
DIAGNOSES:
1) Substance induced mood disorder vs. Adjustment disorder with depressed mood:  Patient no longer was experiencing SI and his depressed mood improved. He did report some ongoing anxiety, but said the gabapentin was helping some. He was discharged on the following medications:
-Remeron 30 mg/night for mood/insomnia
-Gabapentin 600 mg TID for anxiety/alcohol use disorder
-Trazodone 50 mg/night PRN for insomnia.
He was also educated on why alcohol is an inappropriate sleep aid and proper
sleep hygiene.

Discharge Diagnoses:
Unspecified depressive disorder
r/o substance induced mood disorder vs. Adjustment disorder with depressed
mood
cocaine use disorder
cannabis use disorder
alcohol use disorder
tobacco use disorder”

COMMENT:  

Applicant is a 36 year old male presents with a history of Childrearing steeped in exposure to Marijuana (father smoked THC frequently) resulted in his early introduction to THC.  Hence (and sadly) the report that the Applicant began smoking THC by the time he was attending High School arouses little surprise and raises some question regarding data available during his recruitment/enlistment process.  At least partially psychogenic nausea and vomiting were noted which the Applicant initially, repeatedly, reported as having begun years prior to enlistment continued (ironically without associated weight loss) on active duty.  However, the prior to enlistment history was denied at his PAH appearance.  During his active service, repeated mental health evaluations found the Applicant psychiatrically responsible for his behavior.  All in all, mental health issues may well have been present and mitigating, but they do not appear to have been exculpating for Kurti criteria purposes.	

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. 

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

The Applicant contends that his first NJP was improper because it was based on other Marine’s statements implicating him with marijuana use.  The Applicant denied marijuana use or possession during the hearing.  However, a review of the Applicant’s administrative separation paperwork indicated that a Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation was conducted which established the basis for the Applicant’s first NJP.  Additionally, the administrative separation paperwork noted that the Applicant admitted guilt to the charges and he waived his right to make a written statement.  Further, the Applicant contented that his First Sergeant stated that he would be retained in the Marine Corps despite the accusations.  Despite the statement made to the Applicant, the First Sergeant can only provide a recommendation for retention to the command, but the administrative processing of the Applicant was mandatory as he was charged with a violation of Article 112a.  The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted and statements made by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s statements alone are not enough to refute the presumption of regularity.  Therefore, the NDRB concluded the command acted appropriately, equitably, and properly.   
  
The Applicant contends that PTSD is a mitigating factor for his marijuana use at the end of his combat deployment and subsequent NJP.  The Applicant admitted to marijuana use while still deployed in a combat zone prior to redeployment during the hearing.  The NDRB determined that PTSD would not mitigate the Applicant’s negligence demonstrated by the use of illegal drugs in a combat zone.  This misconduct was a conscious decision to violate the tenants of honorable and faithful service.  Relief denied. 

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  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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