ex- HM3, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20210831
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-152 [ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE]

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
Narrative Reason change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	            	Active:   20090914 - 20130816  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20130817	Age at Enlistment:  24
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20150901	Highest Rank/Rate:  HM3
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  14  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  51
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.0 (2)   Behavior/Conduct:  3.0 (2)   OTA:  3.27 
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  NDSM GCM NAVY "E" GWOTSM 

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

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

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.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 29, 23 November 2009 until 28 December 2020, Article 1910-152, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE OR MULTIPLE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) / DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (DWIs).

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable.
2.	The Applicant contends his mental health condition and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were mitigating factors in his administrative separation (ADSEP).

Discussion

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

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

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  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 no retention warning counseling and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.

:  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable.

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 government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention his command treated him unjustly, or that his discharge was improper and inequitable.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

The Applicant self-referred for alcohol treatment and was afforded an opportunity to attend inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment (Level 3 Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP)) from 2 April to 3 May 2012.  On the evening of 27 March 2015 the Applicant was involved in an alcohol related incident (ARI).  Here, according to the Applicant’s own admission, he became highly intoxicated after drinking a bottle of liquor and initiated a text massage conversation with his leading petty officer, and friend.  Based on the nature of this conversation the Applicant’s petty officer became concerned and drove to the Applicant’s house.  At some point civilian emergency medical services were called and may have rendered some type of minor medical support, although the Applicant was not taken to a hospital according to his statement.  The Applicant also mentioned the presence of a handgun, although it was unclear what impact this had on the overall incident.  Based on the details of this event, his command viewed this as an ARI and him as an alcohol rehabilitation failure (ARF).  This is based on MILPERSMAN 1910-152, which states that any member who returns to alcohol abuse at any time during their career following treatment, at Level I or above, and is determined to be a treatment failure by their commanding officer in consultation with the command’s Drug and Alcohol Programs Advisor, local SAPR, and appropriate medical officer or Licensed Independent Practitioner, are considered ARFs.

Based on a review of the Applicant’s service records and available evidence, the Board determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation for ARF.  MILPERSMAN 1910-152 also states in relevant part “unless a written waiver is 

obtained, commands shall process for ADSEP all members considered to be treatment failures or who have incurred a second or greater DUI.”  Further, the characterization of separation should be General (Under Honorable Conditions) unless an Uncharacterized or Honorable is warranted.  Here, the Applicant was separated as an ARF on 1 September 2015 and given an Honorable characterization of service based on the totality of his service.  After a thorough review of the records and circumstances unique to this case, the Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge with respect to this issue.

:  The Applicant contends his mental health condition and PTSD were mitigating factors in his ADSEP.

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 – Alcohol Use Disorder, PTSD (EPTE), Adjustment Disorder
Adjustment Disorder (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	No misconduct	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	NA	
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 4 May 2023.

The Applicant, a Navy veteran, was separated from the service in 2015 for failure of the alcohol rehabilitation program.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends his alcoholism was the result of pre-existing PTSD, made worse by military service.  He further contends that his narrative reason for separation has been a roadblock to employment opportunities and promotion.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been awarded 70% service-connected disability by the VA for chronic adjustment disorder.

Brief timeline:
14 Sep 2009 – Enlistment
Late fall 2009 – Entered BUDS prep program
Feb 2010 – Inpatient hospitalization  (diagnosed with Chronic PTSD)
23 Feb 2010 – Disqualified from NSW/SO and Diving Duty, ELS recommended
29 Mar 2010 – Arrived for duty – BMU-2
23 Jul 2010 – Enrollment in Trauma & Occupational Stress Services
Aug 2010 – MVC/TBI
Aug 2010 – Jan 2012 – Workup for Transient Alteration of Awareness
01 Oct 2010 – Arrived for duty – NAVSTA Norfolk (rate change to LS)
10 Dec 2011 – Arrived for duty – US Warship
29 Jan 2012 – Presented to ship’s psychologist for “anxiety and depression.”  Diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence, Adjustment Disorder
02 Apr – 03 May 2012 – Inpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation (Level 3 SARP)
24 Aug 2012 – Normal neurocognitive testing
17 Aug 2013 – Reenlistment
22 Mar 2014 – Report for duty NMCP (rate change to HN)
22 Sep 2014 – Diving Duty Waiver approved
27 Mar 2015 – Clearance for deployment given – US Warship (scheduled to deploy on 1 Apr 2015)
27 Mar 2015 – Alcohol relapse and OTC drug overdose reported (Applicant and chain of command)
30 Mar – 02 Apr 2015 – Inpatient hospitalization (suicide attempt)
01 Sep 2015 - Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files, testimony, and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	I find compelling evidence that the Applicant suffered from unresolved PTSD, anxiety, and depression during his military service.  This led to his dependence on alcohol as a coping mechanism.  Additionally, I believe, based on frequent medical encounters that the Applicant made a faithful attempt to adhere to treatment recommendations.
2.	Based on the Wilke and Kurta, and examining the entirety of the Applicant’s record, I do not believe that the characterization of “alcohol rehabilitation failure” adequately captures the mental health struggles faced by the Applicant.   As such, I recommend the board change the narrative reason to Secretary Authority.	

The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of PTSD, coupled with additional post-service documentation provided by the Applicant, support the Applicant’s contention his PTSD was a mitigating factor associated with his alcohol dependence.  Moreover, the Board determined the unique circumstances of this individual case, coupled with the documented PTSD diagnosis and the opinion of the Board’s Medical Officer, warranted additional consideration with respect to the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation.  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 diagnoses; and the nexus between his alcohol dependence and his mental/emotional stability.  The Applicant had a prior period of Honorable service, served 2 years and 8 months of a 2 year, 8 month extension second enlistment, and was awarded a Good Conduct Medal.  Furthermore, the Applicant had no documented misconduct.  Upon review of the record, the Board found that because the Applicant’s Mental Health excused/mitigated the nature of his alcohol abuse and 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.  Consequently, the Board discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation.  Thus, by unanimous decision, the Board voted to upgrade the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  Relief granted.

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.