Title: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Author: CAP
Last saved by: Bata, Charles T PO2 USN (USA)
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD22-1214

, ex-SSgt, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20150529
Characterization of Service Received:  (per DD 214) GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  (per DD 214) ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE
Authority for Discharge:  (per DD 214) MARCORSEPMAN 6209 [ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE]

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	HONORABLE
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	19991116 - 19991226  COG	Active:	USMC  19991227 – 20031226 HON
				USMC  20040303 – 20070904 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20070905	Age at Enlistment:  27
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years  18 Months
Date of Discharge:  20130713	Highest Rank:  STAFF SERGEANT
Length of Service:  05  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  06  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  44
Deployment/Operation: IRAQI FREEDOM 19MAR03-31AUG10
                                       ENDURING FREEDOM 7OCT01-31DEC14

Fitness Reports:  AVAILABLE

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	GCM (x4) NMCAM (x2) ACM (x2) SSDR (x3) NMCOSR (x3) ICM (x2) MSGR HSM GWOTSM NDSM PUCN (x2) NMUC (x4) NUC NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan

Periods of UA/CONF:  NONE

NJP:  NONE  SCM:  NONE   SPCM:  NONE  CC:  NONE

CIVIL ARREST:  3

- 20110525:	Charges:  Careless Driving, Operating Vehicle under the influence of alcohol (aggravated) DUI (BAC.215) and leaving the scene of an accident 

- 20111229:	Charges:  Operating a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/etc.; refusal to submit to a breathalyzer and disregarding a Traffic Control device 

- 20120626:	Charges:  (Disorderly Conduct) 

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20110525:	For Civilian Arrest of Careless Driving, Operating Vehicle under the influence of alcohol (aggravated) DUI (BAC.215) and leaving the scene of an accident that occurred on 20110508 in Kentucky.  You also failed to notify your chain of command of the incident and only accepted culpability when the command found out about the incident on 20110523.  

- 20111229:	For Civilian Arrest of Operating a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/etc (08; 2^nd offense) refusal to submit to a breathalyzer and disregarding a Traffic Control device.  This incident occurred on 20111211 in, Kentucky. 

- 20120626:	For Civilian Arrest for an Alcohol related incident (Disorderly Conduct) and a pattern of misconduct due to alcohol related incidents.  On 20111211 in, Kentucky, SNM was arrested for Operating a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/etc (08; 2^nd offense) refusal to submit to a breathalyzer and disregarding a Traffic Control device.  You were then referred to attend SAPR-Level Three treatment in January 2012 and you completed the treatment on 20120213.  On 20130227, SNM plead guilty to the civilian DUI charge from December 2011.  Due to the unit’s remote location, SNM was counseled and ordered to brief the command on any civilian arrests.  On 20120525, SNM was arrested and plead guilty to an alcohol related disorderly conduct charge in Mason, Ohio.  SNM failed to inform the unit of the arrest and the conviction of this incident.  

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20151101
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD15-01155
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:

	Block 13, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “MARINE GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (x4), NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL (x2), AFGHANISTAN CAMPAIGN MEDAL (x2), SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (x3), NAVY AND MARINE CORPS OVERSEAS SERVICE RIBBON (x3), IRAQ CAMPAIGN MEDAL (x2), MARINE SECURITY GUARD RIBBON, HUMANITARIAN SERVICE MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION-NAVY (x2), NAVY MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION (x4), NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION, NATO MEDAL-ISAF AFGANISTAN, LETTER OF APPRECIATION, CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION (INDIVIDUAL AWARD)(x4), MERITORIOUS MAST, CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION (x4)”
	Block 18, Remarks, should contain the statement: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 040303 UNTIL 070904”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the 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.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1600.19F), effective 1 September 2001 until 26 November 2013, Paragraph 6209, ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.

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 misconduct was connected to his psychological condition. 
2.	The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable due to not receiving adequate support from his command.
3.	[BOARD ISSUE] – Narrative Reason for Discharge.

Discussion

Date:  20230131	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  NONE

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.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

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 February to September 2003 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and July 2009 to February 2010 in support of Operation 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:

3 Retention Warning Counseling

3 Civil Arrest

Issues 1-2: The Applicant contends his misconduct was connected to his psychological condition; and contends that his discharge is inequitable due to not receiving adequate support from his command.

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience partially mitigated 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 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, Severe (military/VA);
PTSD (VA)

2. | A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct? | Yes
| B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct? | Possible (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 treatment and service records

The Applicant contends mental health conditions mitigate the misconduct.

04 Feb – 16 Sep 2003 OIF Deployment
5 Sep 2007 – Re-enlistment
1 Jul 2009 – 25 Feb 2010 – OEF Deployment
8 May 2011 – Civilian Arrest (DUI)
June 2011 – Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Treatment
11 Dec 2011 – Civilian Arrest (DUI)
19 Jan – 10 Feb 2012 – SARP program at Great Lakes
25 May 2012 – Civilian Arrest (ARI)
13 Apr 2013 – ASB (Separation, GEN, no retention)
13 Jul 2013 - Separation
Admissions for alcohol-withdrawal symptoms as of September 2022

There’s very little amplifying information in the active duty treatment records concerning the Applicant’s PTSD and potential impact on his in-service behavior.  However, though I did not find evidence of significant alcohol-related issues prior to the Applicant’s second deployment (OEF) and, given the PTSD information contained in the VA records, I find the post-deployment timeline concerning.  For the board’s consideration:

1.	2 DUIs post-OEF deployment
2.	Alcohol rehabilitation treatment in early 2012
3.	Additional ARI in May 2012
4.	ASB considered full range of issues and recommended GEN discharge
5.	PTSD/TBI specifically examined and not found to be a factor in the Applicant’s discharge
6.	PTSD and continued alcohol use diagnoses in the VA

As stated in the Kurta memo, "Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI... and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  The board will need to determine if the combat deployment and timeline fully mitigate the Applicant’s repeated (and dangerous) misconduct.

When reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In this case, the 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 NDRB concluded that the Applicant’s chain of command attempted to provide him with assistance to address his excessive alcohol consumption and reckless behavior by referring him to alcohol abuse prevention treatment.  On two occasions the Applicant was provided the opportunity to attend counseling to help him with his alcohol abuse.  In between, and after those occasions of treatment, the Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence.  While the NDRB acknowledged the Applicant’s prior honorable periods of service, his deployments in support of both Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, and his many service awards, when taking his treatment failure into consideration in concert with his other instances of serious misconduct on multiple occasions, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge characterization was both proper and equitable and informed by all the relevant facts regarding his mental and physical health and further relief to Honorable is not warranted. 

Further, the NDRB considered the Applicant’s PTSD diagnosis occurred post-service; however, the NDRB acknowledged the occurrences of the Applicant’s alcohol related misconduct after his second deployment.  While the NDRB is receptive to conditions that contribute to circumstances, it also accounts for the availability of treatment and the Applicant’s responsiveness and efforts to rehabilitate.  In this case, the record reflects that the Applicant was receiving alcohol abuse prevention care and treatment and that appropriate resources were available for him to access and leverage in order to assist with his issues.  This challenged the NDRB to lessen the severity of his dangerous and reckless decisions that resulted in multiple civilian arrests.  Given the severity and amount of misconduct, the NDRB did not find grounds to exonerate the totality of the misconduct and completely outweigh the assigned discharge characterization.  The NDRB acknowledged the Applicant’s prior honorable periods of service, his deployments in support of both Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, his many service awards, and statements regarding his post-service conduct.  However, after conducting a thorough review of all the facts regarding this case, the NDRB determined his discharge characterization to be both proper and equitable and relief to Honorable is not warranted.  In essence, the Board found that the Applicant’s mental health was a factor, but that it did not rise to such a level as to exonerate him of his misconduct. 

Issue 3: Board Issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

The Board found a change to the Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority was authorized and warranted.  The NDRB has broad authority to review Department of the Navy discharges.  In accordance with SECNAVMAN 5420.1, ¶ 214 (Review on Motion of the NDRB) the NDRB may initiate a Discharge Review even without an Applicant’s request up until the discharge date exceeds 15 years.  The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis, and if such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Further, the NDRB does not require an applicant to make an express or implied contention; specifically, under ¶ 211 (Applications) an “applicant is encouraged, but not required, to identify an issue or issues as pertaining to the propriety or the equity of the discharge.” Thus, under ¶ 212 (Procedural Rights of the Applicant) the NDRB will consider that a request for review from an applicant who does not have an Honorable Discharge will be treated as a request for a change to an Honorable Discharge.  Similarly, an applicant may request a specific change in the narrative reason for separation.  If an applicant does not request a specific change in the reason for discharge, the Board will presume that the request for review does not involve a request for change in the reason for discharge.  However, this presumption does not waive “the NDRB’s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, the NDRB will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.”  Although highlighting the NDRB’s authority to review and change the narrative reason for discharge, the Board noted that “an applicant may not receive a less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation.” ¶ 207 (Objective of Review). 

Consequently, the NDRB held that it is authorized to make a change to the narrative reason for discharge.  Specifically, the NDRB held that the narrative reason for separation should be Secretarial Authority.  In accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the Board held that mitigation should be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In this case, the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct warranted separation.  In making its determination, the NDRB considered the totality of the highly decorated Applicant’s service inclusive of his misconduct and his overall tenure of over 13 years, which included two deployments in support of both Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.  The NDRB acknowledged the Applicant’s post-service PTSD and Alcohol Use Disorder diagnosis and determined that these conditions mitigate the Applicant’s conduct for purposes of changing the narrative reason for discharge.  Therefore, stating in the simplest of terms, the NDRB held the Applicant’s overall service should remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a change to the narrative reason for discharge of Secretarial Authority.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, medical and service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, and the reentry code shall remain 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, 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.

Key:	NFIR - Not found in record 	RESTR - Restriction	NJP - Nonjudicial punishment	SCM - Summary court-martial
	SPCM - Special court-martial	FOP - Forfeiture of pay	RIR - Reduction in rank	EPD - Extra duties
	CONF - Confinement	CC - Civilian conviction	CCU - Correctional Custody Unit	CBW - Confinement on bread and water

Key:	NFIR - Not Found In Record 	UA – Unauthorized absence	NJP – Nonjudicial punishment	SCM – Summary court-martial	
	SPCM – Special court-martial	FOP – Forfeiture of pay	RIR – Reduction in rank	EPD – Extra Duties 
	CONF – Confinement		B&W – Confinement on bread and water