ex- AM1, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210928
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   SUFFICIENT SERVICE FOR RETIREMENT 
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1830-040 

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:	 19961119 – 20150514 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20150515	Age at Enlistment:  50
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20171130	Highest Rank/Rate:  AMC
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  15  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  42
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.0 (3)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.0 (3)   OTA: 3.57 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  (w/”S” Device) NMCCM ACM NMCAM (6) NAVY "E" GCM (6) NDSM AFEM ICM (w/Bronze Star) GWOTEM GWOTSM SSDR (5) FLoC EAWS  

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

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

NJP:  1

- 20161128:	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded: FOP    Suspended: NONE   

CC:  1

- 20160909:	Offense:  Driving under the influence. 
	Sentence: NFIR.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20170524]

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19961119 UNTIL 20150514”
		
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A. MILPERSMAN 1830-040

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 he suffers from PTSD and this condition contributed to the misconduct that accounted for  
      the assignment of his discharge characterization. 

Discussion

Date:  20220323		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from August 2008 to May 2009 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 

:  The Applicant contends that he suffers from PTSD and this condition contributed to the misconduct that accounted for  
               the assignment of his discharge characterization.   

The Applicant states that his discharge characterization is unjust because he suffers from PTSD and this condition was not accounted for at the time of separation. Serving in excess of 20 years the Applicant during this period of service became retirement eligible after he completed 20 years of active duty service. Subject to an alcohol related incident that resulted in a civilian conviction for driving under the influence the Applicant was administratively separated for commission of a serious offense. Being eligible for retirement the Applicant was transferred to the Fleet Reserve and assigned a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The Applicant states that post-service treatment that he is receiving from the VA substantiates a PTSD diagnosis from his tours in combat and it is this condition that impacted his decision making at the time of his misconduct and should afford mitigation. 

In review of the record the NDRB noted that the Applicant deployed in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom. Provided by the Applicant is proof of a VA PTSD and Alcohol Use disorder diagnosis for which he receives a disability payment. While the Applicant cites PTSD as a mitigating factor associated with his misconduct the record of evidence documents alcohol related driving incidents two additional times in 2003 and 2011. Thus the act of misconduct in 2016 that led to his separation reflects a repeated pattern of behavior of alcohol abuse. The Applicant elected to exercise his right to an administrative separation hearing and it was this panel’s recommendation that was upheld by the Convening Authority to transfer him to the Fleet Reserve due to the conclusion that he could no longer effectively serve. While the Applicant cites his PTSD disability rating as material for the NDRB to consider the Board did not identify any relevant information that is available today that the Separation Panel would not have been able to assess and consider. This conclusion is made from a review of the Applicant’s medical record that includes an in-service PTSD diagnosis. Thus, as the NDRB, the Administrative Separation Panel was capable of accounting for any PTSD behaviors and ensuring the Applicant was afforded due process with consideration for all factors. The Board found that while the Applicant experiences hypervigilant behaviors associated with PTSD his misconduct is attributed to a long-standing alcohol abuse disorder. Accounting for his performance and achievements and all factors identified by the Applicant, the NDRB did not find that his assigned discharge characterization to be improper or inequitable. Relief is denied. 

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.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and An Honorable characterization of service is warranted faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In this case, the Applicant’s service was 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.  In making its determination, the Board accounted for the complete record of the Applicant and the achievements and service he afforded to the Navy and this nation. However, his alcohol related incident that occurred during the period of service under review was a repeated act of misconduct that demonstrated a behavioral deficiency he was incapable of overcoming despite the opportunity and support extended to him by his leadership.  

Review of Kurta Factors regarding when Mental Health/PTSD/TBI/MST raised as an issue:
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 not have a condition/experience that mitigated the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  Thus, the Board found the Applicant’s service was appropriately categorized as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION 

1.	Does the available record reasonably support PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?	Yes – PTSD (military, VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes (partially)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No	
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 military and VA treatment records, OMPF, multiple PDHAs/PDHRAs, SARP documentation, and applicant-submitted materials.

Applicant claims (in his statement) that PTSD directly contributed to alcoholism and alcohol-related misconduct.  In reviewing the records, I found the following information relevant:
-	In his MEPS physical paperwork, the applicant reported a DUI in 1984, for which he paid court costs and the case was dropped.
-	The applicant’s first active duty DUI occurred in 2003 based on the applicant’s statement to the ADSEP board
-	Applicant deployed multiple times in support of combat operations in Iraq
-	The diagnosis of PTSD is delayed to between 2011 (one instance) and 2014 (more formal diagnosis) due to not meeting full criteria for the disorder
-	The deployment associated with the applicant’s PTSD occurred between 2008 and 2009.  Specifically, the applicant worked in detainee operations and described a highly stressful/fear-provoking environment.
-	After his redeployment in 2009, the applicant noted hyper arousal and other PTS-like symptoms.  
-	2011 – 2nd  DUI
-	2016 – 3rd DUI
-	2017 – SARP intensive outpatient treatment

Per the applicant’s statements made while enrolled in SARP, he was still experiencing symptoms of hypervigilance but was unaware of the connection between his PTSD by history and alcohol use or of any negative effects his alcohol use has on this PTSD symptom.  The SARP discharge summary also cited a lack of awareness of relapse triggers or cues as increasing the potential for relapse.

In total, I believe the applicant to have a longstanding dependence on alcohol, predating his XXX deployments and possibly even his entry into military service.  Though he had an exemplary military career, three instances of driving while intoxicated clearly demonstrate significant negative aspects that outweigh the positive aspects.  Further, I do not find a credible, direct nexus between his PTSD and his misconduct. 	

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  SUFFICIENT FOR RETIREMENT with a corresponding separation code of NDB, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

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; or 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, who determine 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 provide 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  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.