ex- Capt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220303
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   SECNAVINST 1920.6C 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED
Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: NONE		Active:	 19990121 – 20090514 HON (To accept commission or warrant in same branch of service)

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20090515	Age:  29  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20170506	Highest Rank:  Capt
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   22 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  
Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (3) Pistol  (2) NMCAM CAR (Afghanistan) PUC-N NUC NMUC GCM (3) NDSM ACM (w/ 3 Stars) ICM (w/ 2 Stars) GWOTEM (Afghanistan) GWOTSM SSDR (3) NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan CoC (Individual Award) (2) LoA (2) MM 

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

- 20160927:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 128 (Assaults) 
	Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Awarded: FOP    Suspended:  NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “SECNAVINST 1920.6C”
	
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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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.	Applicant is seeking an upgrade due to inequity and impropriety in the characterization of his discharge.

Discussion

Date:  20220707		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 deployments in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING 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 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
Article 128 (Assaults)
Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer)
Article 134 (General article)

:  Applicant is seeking an upgrade due to inequity and impropriety in the characterization of his discharge.

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 [did not] have a condition/experience that mitigated the discharge; b) the condition existed [did not exist] during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated [did not mitigate] the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed [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 – PTSD, Alcohol Use Disorder (military); Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, PTSD (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Likely	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)	
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 and VA treatment records, PDHA/PDHRAs, and copious materials submitted by the Applicant.

The Applicant contends his PTSD and related sequelae mitigate his misconduct.

Analysis of this case boils down to the two contentions made by the Applicant concerning his mental health at the time of his misconduct.  I reviewed these two contentions, PTSD and alcohol dependence (now known as alcohol use disorder (AUD), in the setting of the Applicant’s long and generally illustrious career (enlisted and officer) in the Marine Corps.  I also noted independent reviews conducted by various medical practitioners during the Applicant’s legal processing for separation.

PTSD – The Applicant’s early childhood experiences (accidental death of a younger brother) led to significant mental trauma, worsened by three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.  While significant, after reviewing multiple behavioral health notes by a Dr. Wellford, I concur with Dr. Wellford’s opinion (as stated to a letter to the II MEF Commanding General on 9 Dec 2016).   There was no direct causal relationship between the Applicant’s PTSD and his misconduct.

AUD – Alcohol appears to be the crux of this case.  Per the treatment records, the Applicant developed a dysfunctional relationship with alcohol starting with his college years (and perhaps before) and worsening during post-deployment period in 2012 (Afghanistan).  In November 2015, the Applicant attended intensive outpatient therapy for his alcohol use disorder.  Dr. Wellford and others opined that, given the comorbid substance abuse that often accompanies PTSD, the Applicant likely used alcohol as a means of self-treatment. I concur that the Applicant’s significant alcohol use was, at least in part, a coping mechanism for PTSD and occupational stressors.  It was unclear as to why the Applicant did not conform to sobriety measures as outlined in his outpatient treatment.

Finally, I reviewed the circumstances of the misconduct, as outlined in the Applicant’s OMPF.  I find several discrepancies between the Applicant’s submitted statement and the record of facts.  First, the Applicant engaged in social alcohol consumption at the MCAGCC Officer’s Club and then with a Marine Master Sergeant (and possibly other Marines) outside his berthing at Camp Wilson on 29 Palms.  This alcohol use appears highly recreational, perhaps as a way to kill time while on a training mission.  It does not appear to be an act of self-medication for PTSD-related symptoms. 

Secondly, I find a discrepancy that the Applicant’s statement that stumbled into the female birthing and touched a female Marine major’s waist while she was sleeping (pg. 11 of submitted brief by Robert Unikel).  This statement tends toward a conclusion that the Applicant did not know he had entered a female berthing and that the touching of the sleeping Major was somehow accidental.  In contrast, statements made in the “Stipulation of Fact” on 25 May 2016, indicate the Applicant knowingly entered the female berthing, walked through the space to find the major, and touched her under the waistband of her shorts.  In his endorsement, the Commandant of the Marine Corps even states that the Applicant was attempting to pull down her shorts and underwear.  Even though the Applicant may have been intoxicated at the time, this appears far from random.  I further disagree with the assertion that there was no premeditation in the Applicant’s misconduct.  Though intoxicated, a Marine officer of this Applicant’s stature had a clear ability to know right from wrong and the ability to act accordingly.  Additionally, as previously noted, liberal consideration doesn’t apply to premeditated or violent acts, especially those of a sexual assault nature.

In the end, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s mental health (and related sequelae) and his misconduct.  Further, I believe all the aspects of the Applicant’s condition were fully considered during the adjudication of his misconduct.  I find no new or compelling evidence that the various senior officials made an improper or inequitable decision to separate the applicant with his OTH characterization in lieu of what likely would have been a guilty finding at court martial.   	

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  Charges were preferred against the Applicant by the Command General, II Marine Expeditionary Force to a general court martial for violations of Article 92 disobeying a lawful general order, Article 120 abusive sexual contact, Article 128 assault consummated by a battery, Article 133 conduct unbecoming an officer, and two specifications of Article 134 drunk and disorderly contact and unlawful entry.  The Applicant then submitted a pretrial agreement to accept NJP and plead guilty to some of the pending charges and resign his commission.  The record reflects the Applicant was found guilty of violations of Articles 92, 128, 133, and 134 of the UCMJ at NJP and submitted his resignation to avoid a trial by court martial.  The likely outcome of the court martial could have resulted in confinement and possibly a dishonorable discharge.  Additionally, the record reflects that the Applicant submitted his resignation with full knowledge and understanding of the consequences and results and did so with the full counsel of both, military and civilian defense attorneys.  

Due to the egregious nature of the offenses and the rank and status of the Applicant, the Applicant’s request for resignation was endorsed and reviewed by two three star Generals and their Staff Judge Advocates before being sent to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.  The Commandant then sent this request to the Secretary of the Navy and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the Separation Authority, directed the separation of the Applicant with an Other Than Honorable characterization.  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.  The NDRB determined that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the contention that the Marine Corps did not follow applicable laws and policy regarding the Applicant’s discharge.

Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was an underlying cause and a mitigating circumstance of his misconduct, the record reflects willful, premediated misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment record through the VA for both in-service and post-service medical treatment and conducted a thorough review.  Additionally, the NDBR assigned a medical doctor to the discharge review board for this case.  The NDRB noted that the Applicant is a multiple deployment combat veteran that has documented alcohol and mental health condition diagnoses including PTSD.  These conditions are provided liberal consideration in accordance with the Wilkie, Kurta, and Hagel memos for discharge reviews conducted by the NDRB and the NDRB did fully consider the Applicant’s mental health and alcohol related diagnoses with the guidance provided by the memos.  The Applicant’s PTSD diagnosis was carefully considered but the nature and severity of the offenses provide no medical nexus between his PTSD and his misconduct.  The Applicant’s mental health treatment demonstrates intact judgement, reasoning, and appropriate cognitive functioning that renders the Applicant fully responsible for his actions.  Additionally, the Applicant’s own statements within the record detailed that the Applicant attended a command sponsored social function and consumed alcohol during the event.  The statement goes on to detail how the Applicant also purchased additional alcohol after the event with another Marine to continue drinking.  These actions are not considered self-medicating actions but rather the alcohol was consumed in an open, social environment, even though taken to excess.  The Applicant then entered female berthing, sought out and attempted to remove the shorts and underwear of a female Marine Officer that was sleeping in the berthing.  Though intoxicated, a Marine officer of the Applicant’s stature had a clear ability to know right from wrong and the ability to act accordingly.  Therefore, the misconduct of the Applicant goes well outside of the bounds of liberal consideration of the Kurta, Wilkie, or Hagel memos.  The NDRB determined that the misconduct of the Applicant was premediated and of a nature that does not qualify for liberal consideration.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that a PTSD diagnosis did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct and that his characterization of discharge was appropriate and consistent with the characterization of similar cases. Violating general orders, assault of another Marine Corps Officer, drunk and disorderly, and conduct unbecoming an officer were all conscious decisions to violate the tenants of honorable and faithful service and lie outside of the guidelines of liberal consideration according to the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos.  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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of DFS1.  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, 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.