ex- MA2, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20210106
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: SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY 
Reentry Code change to: REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:			Active:	 20090204 - 20150218  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20150219	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:  05 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20181211	Highest Rank/Rate:  MA2
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  22  Day(s)
Education Level:  10	AFQT:  63
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.6 (5)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.4 (5)   OTA: 3.48 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	GCM NMCAM GWOTSM SSDR (2) NDSM FLoC IRCM NMCOSR (6)

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

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

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20211029
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND21-00239
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	    “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 	20090204 UNTIL 20150218”
	    “MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)”

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.  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).

C.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 128.  (FOR COSO ONLY)

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant is seeking an upgrade in characterization of service and contends that he did not engage in the alleged misconduct.
2.	Applicant contends that his overall service record and post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. 

Discussion

Date:  20220722		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 in support of Operation INHERENT RESOLVE.  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 no retention warning counseling and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.

:  Applicant is seeking an upgrade in characterization of service and contends that he did not engage in the alleged misconduct and that his overall service record and post service conduct warrant an upgrade.

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.  

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. 

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.  

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 – Alcohol Use Disorder, Adjustment Disorder (military)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	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 the Applicant’s military treatment records in addition to personal appearance testimony on 21 July 2022.

The Applicant contends (in part) that PTSD & TBI mitigates his in-service misconduct.

Several issues for consideration here:
1.	TBI - I was unable to find significant information about the Applicant’s mTBI other than a positive screen on 20 September 2017 during an initial psychology evaluation.  During his testimony, the Applicant outlined two incidents that resulted in a head injury, though neither was evaluated.  Based on the apparent lack of long-term sequelae from this injuries, I do not think that TBI was a mitigating factor in the Applicant’s misconduct.  Note: I cannot fully explain the blackout situation that occurred the night of the incident.  Whether this was peri-traumatic dissociation/amnesia, the effect of anesthesia, acute alcohol intoxication, some combination of these three, or something else won’t likely be explained in retrospect.
2.	PTSD – The Applicant was screened for PTSD (using the validated PCL-M screen questions) during his visits to mental health during September and October.  Each screening resulted in a sub-diagnostic score (averaging in the mid-high 20’s with positive cut off at 50) and no corroborating evidence presented in direct conversations with the mental health providers.  Later (during a 10-day Intensive Outpatient Treatment for alcohol in November and December 2013), this number increased to 76.  Mental health practitioners opined and the Applicant requested further diagnostic workup for PTSD but I didn’t see anything in the record.  During direct testimony, the Applicant reliably meets some of the criterion (exposure, possible altered mood, altered reactivity) but not necessarily the other criteria (intrusion symptoms, avoidance).  Though I would encourage the Applicant to continue to purse mental health treatment, I do not see adequate evidence of the existence of DSM-5-based PTSD at the time of the misconduct.
3.	Stress/Anxiety – While PTSD doesn’t appear to have been a factor, the Applicant related details of significant interpersonal and occupational stressors.  These stressors were further corroborated in the medical treatment records as early as September 2017 (~ one month from the incident in question).  Notably, the Applicant realized his stress levels had reached a critically high point and he did not feel safe to continue without formal intervention.
a.	He underwent evaluation (19 September 2017) at the NSA Bahrain Mental Health Clinic with the following notes and outlined course of treatment:
i.	The Applicant described improved mood after his consultation and committed himself to treatment.
ii.	His provider described him as engaged and fully-intact psychologically, though limited in his coping skills for the management of stress.
iii.	The Applicant was not actively homicidal, suicidal, and capable of making logical & goal-directed decisions.
iv.	The provider offered continued sessions, information on sleep hygiene, couple’s counseling, and recommendations to reduce social isolation.
v.	Though the Applicant contends that he should have had duty restrictions imposed by Mental Health at that visit, nothing in the record indicates a need for hospitalization.  Duty restriction would have to have been a conversation between the Applicant and his provider then recommended to the command.
b.	Subsequent evaluations (Sept 2017 – Nov 2018)
i.	Negative repeat screenings for PTSD, anxiety, depression, and suicide.  Positive screenings for hazardous drink not reported and risk for functional impairment.
ii.	Improvement noted until the 17 October incident, then stable levels of anger and frustration.
4.	Alcohol – Records from the SARP intake and intensive outpatient treatment speak to early but mild involvement with alcohol (age 13), rising to significant levels after his 2009 enlistment.  Though the Applicant contends his drinking decreased while in Bahrain, evidence points to at least significant consumption of various types of alcohol (beer & spirits) while not on duty.  Additionally, I did not find credible evidence that the Applicant used alcohol as self-medication for psychological stressors.  Evidence points to alcohol as a factor in the 17 October incident, though the Applicant denied significant drinking that night during his PAH.  Subsequent to this incident, the command directed treatment at SARP.  I did find evidence of outpatient SARP treatment from 27 November – 8 December 2017 in Jacksonville, Florida and continued sobriety post-treatment.

Conclusions:
1.	The evidence does not support the contention that the Applicant’s two episodes of head trauma and unreported TBI played a role in the circumstances of 17 Oct 2013.
2.	The Applicant experienced heightened stress levels and anger management issues around the time of the domestic violence incident.  Though these did not rise to the level of PTSD, I do believe them to have been significant and warranting medical treatment.
3.	The Applicant sought treatment for his anger and stress and faithfully continued treatment while fit for full duty.
4.	Alcohol played some role in the incident, though to what extent is not clear as I was unable to determine the timeline from consumption to altercation to surgery.
5.	At all times, the Applicant was psychologically intact and responsible for his own actions/capable of appropriate decision making.  Additionally, he had adequate resources to self-refer to mental health or an emergency room if he felt he’d lost self-control.

Based on these conclusions, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health and alcohol use.  Further, review of pertinent liberal consideration memoranda suggest that relief is more appropriate for non-violent offenses.	

In accordance with the MILPERSMAN, servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense.  Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The Applicant’s administrative separation package documents the evidence of his misconduct through an NCIS investigation and testimony by the victim.  The Applicant was afforded the opportunity to rebut the charges against him at an administrative separation board and the board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence was substantiated.  Although the Applicant has no recollection of the events that led to his separation, his statements that he did not engage in the alleged misconduct alone do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. 

The Applicant contends mental health conditions including TBI were mitigating factors in his misconduct.  The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records for both in-service and post-service medical treatment and conducted a thorough review. The NDRB’s review found documentation of diagnoses of Alcohol Use Disorder and Adjustment Disorder in the Applicant’s service record to support his claim, however there was insufficient information regarding the Applicant’s mild TBI and the record lacks evidence of long term effects of mTBI.  Additionally, there is insufficient evidence in the record of a PTSD diagnosis or treatment and the Applicant was screening multiple times in consecutive months.  The Applicant’s record documents Alcohol Use Disorder and supports that the Applicant likely consumed significant levels of alcohol.  The record further documents that the Applicant’s alcohol use started as young as 13 and continued in increasing levels throughout his service.  There is insufficient evidence however, that alcohol was used by the Applicant as a self-medicating regime but was rather social and recreational use.  Though the Applicant may feel that mental health conditions including PTSD and TBI were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects that the Applicant was fit for duty, not a danger to himself or others, was capable of making logical and goal directed decisions, and fully responsible for his actions.  The evidence of record did not show that mental health was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions and no medical nexus between his mental health conditions and his misconduct exists.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that mental health did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct and by unanimous vote determined that an upgrade in characterization was not warranted.  Relief denied. 

The Applicant suggests his post-service achievements warrants consideration for an upgrade.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question.  Post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.  The Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Honorable Conditions (General).  Relief denied.

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

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found . . Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) with a corresponding separation code of GKQ, 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.