ex- PS3, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210622
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

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:  20150127	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20180720	Highest Rank/Rate:  PS3
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  05  Month(s)  24  Day(s)
Education Level:  14	AFQT:  69
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.0 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.0 (2)   OTA: 3.21 
Fitness Reports: 

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

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

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

NJP:  1

- 20180418:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 20180322-20180326, 3 days
	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 107 (False official statements) 
	Article 123 (Forgery) 
	Awarded: FOP    Suspended: NONE  
	
NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20191114
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND19-00814
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 43, effective 31 May 2013 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 the characterization of his discharge was reprisal for reporting his command to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). 
2.	The Applicant contends his medical issues, mental health condition, and stress caused by serious family issues were mitigating factors for his misconduct.  
3.	[BOARD ISSUE] – Change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge. 
Discussion

Date:  20230111		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:

1 

Issue 1: The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because it was reprisal for reporting his command to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). 

The NDRB 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 Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The NDRB considered testimony from the Applicant and a character witness regarding the Applicant’s OIG complaint against the command and possible reprisal.  While the Applicant’s NJP appears to have occurred after the Applicant reported his command to the OIG, without further information, no decision could be made regarding a connection between the Applicant’s complaint to the OIG and his subsequent separation.  Therefore, the Board found insufficient evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant produced sufficient documented evidence for the NDRB’s consideration, to support the contention the Applicant deserves an upgrade in characterization based on this issue.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied on this issue.

Issue 2: The Applicant contends his medical issues, mental health condition, and stress caused by serious family issues, were mitigating factors for 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 – Major Depressive Disorder	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s treatment and service records in addition to personal appearance testimony on 11 Jan 2023.

The Applicant contends mental health conditions mitigate the misconduct.

27 Jan 2015 – Enlistment
6 Feb 2018 – Administrative Counseling
28 Feb 2018 – PEB referral (headache syndromes)
18 Apr 2018 – NJP (Arts 86, 91, 92, 107, 123)
18 Apr 2018 – Informal PEB results – FFD
30 Apr 2018 – Request for formal PEB
20 Jul 2018 – Discharge

The Applicant, a Personnel Specialist (reserve), was separated for the commission of a serious offense in July 2018.  Concurrent to the events of the separation, the Applicant was under care (and PEB processing) for various medical problems.  Additionally, the Applicant had submitted two Office of Inspector General complaints pertaining to the NOSC decisions and treatment of personnel.  Per his contentions in the application and PAH testimony, the Applicant believes that he was mistreated by a toxic command climate including inappropriate accessing of his medical records, discrimination based on race, and lack of sympathy concerning his ongoing medical issues.

In reviewing this case under liberal consideration guidelines, I conclude the following:

1.	The Applicant had significant neurologic and psychologic conditions that impacted the performance of his duties.  The conditions imposed limitations on the type and length of functions that this member was able to perform and, per evidence in the record, these were not adequately heeded by the NOSC chain of command.
2.	The Applicant likely suffered from communication gaps inherent in the mixing of civilian and military medical care, worsened by frequent trips to civilian emergency departments and urgent care facilities. 
3.	The actions that led to the Applicant’s discharge appear uncharacteristic of an otherwise motivated and high performing sailor.  I find it as-likely-as-not that this Applicant was enduring significant stressors, related to his medical conditions and the command climate, during the time of misconduct.  These stressors likely led to the poor decision making that led to his separation.
4.	As stated in the Kurta memorandum, honorable service is not required to be flawless service.  The bulk of this sailor’s service was well above average and, given the aforementioned mitigating factors, not significantly marred by the NJP as to warrant a General Under Honorable Conditions 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 service record, service evaluations, documented medical issues, reported personal issues and statements from the Applicant’s character witnesses noting command leadership challenges, disparate treatment experienced by the Applicant, and confirmation of Applicant’s work ethic despite medical issues experienced while trying to perform his duties. 

Shortly after transferring to his command, the Applicant’s wife became extremely ill requiring hospitalization followed by care at home.  The Applicant also became ill and had no family support in the area to assist him or his wife.  The Applicant’s new command was not as supportive as his last command with regard to his family situation; he no longer received support or accommodation for his medical and personal circumstances.  In addition to his wife’s illness, the applicant suffered from neurological issues which resulted in a referral to a Medical Board.  The Applicant also developed a documented mental health condition.  The Applicant began to feel pressure to perform from his new command when he was medically unable to do so.    

The Applicant reported that his AWOL was a direct result of him being unable to leave the house because of what he was experiencing medically.  The Applicant sought treatment with a civilian provider because he was ashamed of his condition.  The Applicant reported he was threatened with separation if he did not provide documentation covering a period of absence.  The Applicant explained that he obtained documentation from his civilian urgent care provider; however, the documentation did not cover one day of his absence.  Due to the pressure he was feeling and the threat of separation, the Applicant included the one date that was missing from the documentation.  The command uncovered the discrepancy after they contacted a former NOSC personnel member, who worked for the urgent care center, to request Applicant’s record and a copy of the note.  The Applicant’s civilian medical record was accessed without the Applicant’s permission.

Based on the above, the NDRB determined that the pressure placed on the Applicant, by his command, resulted in the Applicant exhibiting out of character behavior during a time of extreme stress, anxiety, personal and family medical issues.  In essence, the Board recognized the Applicant’s service was not flawless, but also found his actions were not only mitigated by his mental/emotional health, but that his conduct did not rise to level as being so significant that it outweighed his overall military service.  

Issue 3: 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, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed honorable with a commensurate narrative reason for discharge.  

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.  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.