ex- AS3, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210112
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-146 [DRUG ABUSE] 

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:  20100414	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years  20 MONTHS 
Date of Discharge:  20151123	Highest Rank/Rate:  AS2
Length of Service:  05  Year(s)  07  Month(s)  10  Day(s) 
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  71
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance: 3.56 (9)   Behavior: 3.00 (9)   OTA: 3.28 

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20150730:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) (x2)
	Awarded: RESRT   Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20100608:	Retained in the Naval Service in spite of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent enlistment into Naval Service, as evidenced by failure to disclose dependent child.

- 20151002:	For refusal of substance abuse rehabilitation program and acknowledgment that refusal of the recommended treatment may result in immediate administrative separation processing on the basis of Treatment Failure.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20170131
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND16-01468
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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 32, effective 07 September 2010 until 8 October 2019, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

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 the loss of this son led to undiagnosed PTSD which mitigated his misconduct.
2.	[BOARD ISSUE] – Board Issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

Discussion

Date:  20230223		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.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

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 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) (x2)

:  The Applicant contends that the loss of this son led to undiagnosed PTSD which mitigated 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 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 ADJUSTMENT DISORDER as MIXED ANXIETY & DEPRESSIVE DISORDER (USN); PTSD (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes ADJUSTMENT DISORDER (USN)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes (ADJUSTMENT DISORDER)	
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:	 Data includes:

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

27 Jan 1987—DOB

 “never grieved the lost of his mother…[Applicant] graduated high school and attended Lamar University for a few semesters.  After which, he joined the United States Navy. Before joining the Navy, [Applicant] had a son, [XX], with his college girlfriend… [his son] was born with several medical issues.  He suffered seizures and was in the NICU [NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT] after his birth.  [Son/Child] suffered from a rare chromosome disorder [Trisomy 2] and was not expected to live past 6 months. [Son/Child] would have to have a feeding tube for the rest of his little life, if he lived past 6 months.  His son would not develop like other babies.  He would not walk or talk like other babies, but [Applicant] loved him.  As [Applicant]  was preparing to head off to the Navy, he spent most of his time at the hospital with [son]…”

His PTSD symptoms were likely exacerbated in 2015 by the death of his son while he was actively serving in the United States Navy. Following the death of his son, and returning to his military duties after a two week leave, [Applicant] struggled to cope with his PTSD symptoms and resorted to cocaine use in an attempt to manage his symptoms. In particular, [Applicant] currently struggles with elevated anxiety, insomnia, intrusive thoughts/dreams related to the deaths of his mother and son, as well as immense guilt due to not being present for the passing of his son. 

14 APR 2010—ENLISTMENT:  AFQT 71

16 Jun – 21 Sep 2012— FITREP:  ITA 4.29; EARLY PROMOTE.

22 Sep 2012 - 15 Jun 2013— FITREP:  ITA 3.43 MUST PROMOTE

29 Jun – 01 Jul 2015—NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER SAN DIEGO PSYCHIATRY/PSYCHOLOGIY SERVICE DISCHARGE SUMMARY:
“Pt is a 28 yo married but separated AD USN AS2 with 5 years CAD and a past psych hx of depression, anxiety disorder NOS, and bereavement due to death of 5 year-old son 3 months ago, was brought to NMCSD ED by command for concern about suicidality [which the Applicant, now, explains was due to a misinterpretation of a chance comment he [Applicant] had made [but since denied having made] and had led to a “72 hour” commitment—he emphasized that he was never suicidal]...Psychologically, he endorses depressed mood, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, and intermittent SI. Depression and anxiety started around Jan 2015 when his wife and 5 yo son moved to Texas after he and his wife decided to get a divorce. At that time he also had returned from security duty for 18 mo back to his rate and this was stressful. He began seeing Dr. P___ around this time for depression, anxiety and insomnia. He lost his first born son (5yo, Trisomy 2, previous relationship, living with his son A's mother,) in March when his son started vomiting and coded in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. This significantly affected him and increased his depression and anxiety and decreased his motivation to participate in anything, including getting out of bed and going to work. He was made LIMDU around March 2015 and was transferred off the USS Ronald Reagan to NMCSD where he worked on the quarterdeck. He was moved to 1st LT 2 months ago because he was not going to work on time saying he woke up late because he was unable to sleep. He started seeing Dr. ___, psychologist, in May 2015 for grief counseling and he tries to see her 1- 2x/wk depending on her schedule. He denies symptoms consistent with mania, OCD, PTSD and psychosis. He currently denies SI/HI/AVH. He has no history of SA or hospitalizations. During interview he spoke at length about his thoughts on the world and seems to have a fragile ego structure while also feeling like he has a lot of influence over other people. He demonstrated Narcissistic PD traits without meeting full criteria. His depression and anxiety started initially with his separation from his wife and son and was exacerbated by the death of his other son making Adjustment disorder [bolding added] the most likely diagnosis at this time.  Admission MSE notable for: appropriately tearful when discussing [his son’s]…death, generally cooperative although guarded demeanor, linear/logical thought process…SI/HI/AVH…PHQ-9 score was 22.”

“The patient’s presentation warrants a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, Cocaine use disorder, Cannabis use disorder and Narcissistic PD traits at this time.  The patient was not started on any medications, but received talk therapy, participated in psychotherapy, and ward milieu.  Over time, patient continued denying suicidal thoughts, mood was euthymic intermittently and patient demonstrated future orientation.  Upon discharge the patient was able to verbalize a plan for safety and was future oriented.  No restraints were used during the hospitalization…Patient did not report pain at clinically significant level while hospitalized.” 

17 Jun 2015—RANDOM URINALYSIS:  POSITIVE FOR COCAINE & THC.

28 Apr – 30 Jul 2015—FITREP:  ITA 2.71; SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
     NJPs/UCMJ 112a USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES X2.

26 Oct 2015—CO, NMC SAN DIEGO ADMIN SEP RECOMMENDATION “Comments of Commanding Officer:  [1.k.((1)]…was questioned by the…NCIS...AS3 [Applicant] stated that following the death of his son in March of 2015 he was experiencing a great amount of anxiety, depression, and insomnia…stated he was meeting with a psychiatrist and therapist, while being prescribed an assortment of medications…however felt that he was not making any progress and admitted that he resorted to using THC and Cocaine to ease the pain from the death of his son…”

23 Nov 2015—DISCHARGE:  UOTH/GKK/RE-4/MISSCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)

POST SEPARATION:

28 Feb 2017—NDRB DISCHARGE (RECORD) REVIEW/DOCKET ND 16-01468:  NO CHANGE.

2017 - 2021—Per VA Record:  Maintained employment with “CON EDISON.”  At his PAH, the Applicant clarified he had a succession of good jobs at Con Edison and had done well adding, “the only reason I left was to return to Texas to be near my [other] son.” 

22 Oct 2019—NY Health System, PhD Psychol eval:

“32 y/o, employed, domiciled with partner, AA, heterosexual, cisgender, male Navy veteran self referred for treatment of his anxiety/depression and cocaine use…’I’m a mess…never really processed stuff from my past.’…”

Apparently, a Dr. M at the “MHVA”…referred him “for therapy at the MFC…”  Diagnoses were as follows with no mention of PTSD:
1.	Mixed anxiety and depressive disorder
2.	Cocaine use disorder, moderate, dependence.
18 Aug 2021—“VA ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION DATA, SCREEN <11>:”
     9411-POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER(70% SC)  
     EFFECTIVE DATE: MAR 13, 2020

COMMENT:  

While the available record, as noted above, includes exposure to what would have been expected to be major psychological trauma both prior to enlistment (at age 12, witnessing his mother’s late night fatal “stroke” and, in 2015, while serving in the Navy with an overall commendable Service Record, enduring the death of his 5 year old first born son (presumably due to the sequelae of Trisomy 2 disease)  compatible with those which can result in PTSD, the available record, and Applicant’s retrospective testimony at his Personal Appearance Hearing, support the finding of the 2015 vintage Naval Medical Center San Diego, CA 3-day psychiatric hospitalization conclusion ruling out PTSD and establishing the diagnosis of ADJUSTMENT DISORDER WITH MIXED ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION to which I would, only add the possibility of being characterized as PATHOLOGIC or COMPLICATED GRIEF.  In any event, his recollected reaction would appear to have been feeling left at his wits end, in turn, leading to what he has, since, come to recognize as decisions reflecting poor judgment resulting in the unfortunate termination of what had held the promise of a successful Navy career.
That the forgoing may have represented a prodromal manifestation of what, eventually, was diagnosed as PTSD by the VA remains a distinct possibility.  Despite the profound nature of the success of precipitating traumatic events, the submitted evidence and Applicant’s testimony at his PAH indicates he deserves additional credit for having achieved much success during his post discharge adjustment.  Accordingly, while not entirely exculpating, this review concludes a significantly mitigating nexus can be established between the misconduct and the above noted mental health condition(s).   	

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.

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

In this case, the Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his drug use and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Prior to the loss of his 5-year old son, the Applicant enjoyed exceptional evaluations with an Overall Trade Average of 3.67 prior to his misconduct and had earned a Navy Good Conduct Medal.  The Applicant had twice extended his original 4-year enlistment and was less than one month shy of his Expiration of Active Obligated Service when discharged.  The Board also considered that the Applicant had unwisely heeded the advice of his recruiter not to disclose his two infant sons, neither of which he had custody at the time.  When one son, whose mother he eventually married, was discovered, the Applicant was counseled that his failure to disclose the dependent could have led to his discharge.  This led to another unfortunate decision by the Applicant not to disclose his elder son, of whom he never had custody, but shared a strong familial bond nonetheless.  That poor decision had a deleterious impact when his son sadly passed, leading to the command’s understandable initial resistance and inadequate execution in allowing the Applicant ample time and opportunity to grieve the loss of his son.  The Applicant’s bereavement was likely exacerbated given the Applicant’s sudden loss of his mother at age 12.  This unfortunate breakdown in trust between the Applicant and the Navy led to a downward spiral and to the Applicant’s unwise, but understandable decision to give up on his seemingly ineffective treatment with prescribed medication and pursue illicit narcotics to alleviate his depression.  This misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career but the Board found his poor decisions were mitigated by his poor mental health brought about by his young son’s passing and took note that the Applicant had no other misconduct in his near completion of his five-year and eight month obligation.

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 the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief primarily based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.  Clemency also includes substitution for good cause an administrative discharge for an executed punitive discharge or dismissal in select cases.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service to Honorable is appropriate.

Issue 2: Board Issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

The Board found a change to the Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority was authorized and warranted.  The NDRB has broad authority to review Department of the Navy discharges.  In accordance with SECNAVMAN 5420.1, ¶ 214 (Review on Motion of the NDRB) the NDRB may initiate a Discharge Review even without an Applicant’s request up until the discharge date exceeds 15 years.  The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis, and if such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Further, the NDRB does not require an applicant to make an express or implied contention; specifically, under ¶ 211 (Applications) an “applicant is encouraged, but not required, to identify an issue or issues as pertaining to the propriety or the equity of the discharge.” Thus, under ¶ 212 (Procedural Rights of the Applicant) the NDRB will consider that a request for review from an applicant who does not have an Honorable Discharge will be treated as a request for a change to an Honorable Discharge.  Similarly, an applicant may request a specific change in the narrative reason for separation.  If an applicant does not request a specific change in the reason for discharge, the Board will presume that the request for review does not involve a request for change in the reason for discharge.  However, this presumption does not waive “the NDRB’s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, the NDRB will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.”  Although highlighting the NDRB’s authority to review and change the narrative reason for discharge, the Board noted that “an applicant may not receive a less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation.” ¶ 207 (Objective of Review). 

Consequently, the Board held that it is authorized to make a change to the narrative reason for discharge; reasserted (without necessarily repeating in this section) all the reasons stated above for warranting a change to the characterization of service, and summarized the following considerations concerning the change to the narrative reason for discharge.  Specifically, the Board held that the narrative reason for separation should be Secretarial Authority.  Again reasserting all the reasons stated above that supported the Board’s decision to warrant a change to the characterization of service, and in accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the Board held that mitigation should also be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In other words, the Board found that because the Applicant’s Mental Health excused/mitigated the maliciousness/willful nature of the misconduct enough to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of service then it also rationally applied to the narrative reason for which the Applicant was discharged.  In essence, the Board found that the underlying narrative reason for the Applicant’s discharge is not misconduct, but the Applicant’s inability for continued Naval Service.  As such, stating in the simplest of terms, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed Honorable with a narrative reason for discharge of Secretarial Authority.

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  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF, 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.