ex- PFC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20210301
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	             	Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20100104	Age at Enlistment:  18
Period of Enlistment:  05 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20120606	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  05  Month(s)  03  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  70
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Proficiency:  4.0 (5)   Conduct:  3.9 (5)   

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle SS GWOTSM NDSM LoA (4) CoA

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20110204: 	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
	Awarded:  RIR  Suspended: RIR   
 
- 20111130: 	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 3 specifications
	Awarded:  RIR FOP RESTR  Suspended: NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  5

- 20110204: For poor judgement, failure to follow rules and regulations, by entering a male Marine’s barracks room on 20110110 and attempting to hide when the duty came to check on her. Dismissed at NJP.  

- 20110204: For poor judgement, failure to follow rules and regulations, by showing up to your daily duty section musters on 20110110 and then excusing yourself from your duties before they were complete on three different occasions, and then being found not in the proper uniform attire, resulting in NJP.  

- 20111130: For violation of Article 86, of the UCMJ, absent without leave (5 specifications), by failing to go to the Branch Medical Clinic on 20111103 and to the Substance Abuse Counseling Center on 20111028, 20111101, 20111104, and 20111108. 

- 20111216: For violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ, Restriction breaking, on 20111202 at 1200, by riding in another Marine’s POV in violation of the terms of her restriction.   

- 20120130: For violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ, absence without leave, and Article 92 of the UCMJ, failure to obey an order or regulation, for sleeping through restriction muster on 20120109 at 2145.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20211104
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD21-00421
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

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.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 26 November 2013. 

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 her discharge is unjust because the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has determined her service to be honorable.
2.	The Applicant contends her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in her misconduct.
3.	[BOARD ISSUE] – Board issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

Discussion

Date:  20230313		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.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (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.  As a result of the Applicant’s claim 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.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) (x4)

:  The Applicant contends her discharge is unjust because the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has determined her service to be honorable.

Decisions reached by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Navy.  The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy and Marine Corps when determining a member’s discharge characterization.  This issue was an insufficient basis to grant relief. 

:  The Applicant contends her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in her misconduct.

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 mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION

1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes Depression, PTSD, MST Investigation (USMC);
 Alcohol & Other Drug Abuse; PTSD; Major
Depressive Disorder; and Alcohol Use Disorder (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes (Less certain regarding MST)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes (See above)	
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:	 
Data includes:

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

30 Apr 1991:  DOB

Age 15:  Per USMC ADMIN DISCHARGE BOARD:  “Rape by stranger who then offered her ‘Chrystal Meth.’”
ALSO:  
“Veteran reported experiencing a sexual assault around age 15 or
16 by an unknown person during high school. She also reported experiencing subsequent depression and anxiety symptoms. She was not treated professionally nor was she diagnosed for her symptoms. Despite her symptoms, Veteran was able to continue her education and stay active in school related activities and work part-time. She completed high school, attempted college courses, and eventually enlisted in the Marines.”  See 14 Nov 2019 VA NOTE.

04 Jan 2010—ENLISTMENT:  Age 18 yo.

PI from CL team at ER on 22 Aug 2011): 
“This evaluation was voluntary and admission was voluntary.  The patient reported that the day of presentation between 20 and 2100 hours she began to drink.  Patient stated she was drinking with other people and was feeling “not bad.”  At this point, she denied having suicidal ideation.  The patient reported that she drank approximately one half a 5th of Grey Goose.  She stated she was having fun and went to bed.  She stated when she went to bed she started thinking about “a lot of stuff.”  The patient stated she became very upset, called the gunnery sergeant.  She reported that the gunnery sergeant came over with a friend.  She stated that this time she was not suicidal, just sad.  The patient stated she was unwilling to give further specifics and repeatedly and somewhat sheepishly would change the subject.”  

“…duty, to wit: Branch Medical Clinic, Marine Corps Air
Station Miramar, California. Additionally, on or about 28 October 2011, 1 November 2011, 4 November 2011, and 8 November 2011, without authority, I failed to go at the prescribed time to my appointed place of duty, to wit: Substance Abuse Counseling Center, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California. On 
17 Nov 2011 I was terminated by the Substance Abuse Counseling Center as being non-amenable for any further treatment due to repeated unsuccessful attempts to consistently attend my required sessions. By these actions I have demonstrated a serious lack of judgment and violation of the ethos of the Marine Corps, which will not be tolerated in the future. Specific recommendations for corrective action are: obey all orders and regulations.”

1 Sept to 4 Oct 2011—SARP ADMISSION COMPLETED:  

02 Dec 2011:  RESTRICTION VIOLATION

09 Jan 2012:  FAILURE TO MUSTER

09 Jan 2012—NMC San Diego, MCASM Adult Psychiatry:  “Pt stated she is facing admin sep for having 2 ARI’s and the command finding spice in her room. She denied using it. Pt stated she is happy to be getting out because she stated she regretted joining the Marines “from the day I joined”. Pt reported that she was psychiatrically hospitalized for 2 suicide attempts, once from Aug 19-23 and again the next week from 29-31 Aug. Pt reported that she has been taking Zoloft and Trazodone and they have been very beneficial for her. She stated that Zoloft “evens me out” and “keeps me from getting too low”.

10 Jan 2012—SUBJ:  “FROM: Mental Health Unit, Branch Medical Clinic, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA 92140MENTAL HEALTH DISPOSITION ICO PFC BRIANNA J PFC  was initially seen for psychological evaluation on 28NOV11 by Dr. G___ at MCRD-MHU. She was referred by LT X to MHU for the CPT Group for Women with Trauma. She has been diagnosed with Chronic Major Depression (EPTE), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (EPTE), and Substance Abuse (EPTE), and is being specifically treated at MHU by Dr. G___ for childhood trauma that likely predisposed her to repeated sexual traumas thereafter. She has reported symptoms typical of depression and anxiety, but also demonstrates some symptoms that specifically relate to repeated traumatization. PFC has been attending therapy weekly since her…”

23 Apr 2012—“women’s group” appointment:  “Pt was referred by a primary healthcare provider to MCRD–MHU for psychotherapy to treat PTSD and/or symptoms related to trauma…”

May 2012—Follow-up:  “Pt reported that her mood has been good, and she is very excited about getting out of the military soon.  She was disappointed about the results of the board meeting and her OTH discharge, however, she is accepting of it and happy to be moving forward in her life. She is waiting for her 10-day letter. She will be going home to Kansas to visit family…”

PTSD Checklist (PCL-S)
Rationale: To follow the severity and progression of trauma-related sxs and pt’s response to treatment Time (patient completion) = 5-10 minutes Time (interpretation of test results/ preparation of report = 5-10 minutes Requesting provider: Dr. G
Test Interpretation:  Total Score: 28/85
Level of distress due to trauma: Mild to Moderate
DIAGNOSIS:
Axis I:
Depression NOS; probable Substance-induced mood disorder
PTSD
Alcohol abuse, sx in remission
Axis II: Cluster B traits/Borderline traits esp.
Axis III: Vaginal herpes.
Axis IV: Occupation, legal and social stressors.

06 Jun 2012—DISCHARGE included: OUTH; GKA1; RE-4 MISCONDUCT

POST SEPARATION:

Then in 2014 [~2 years post discharge]she resumed college after moving back to Kansas City area. Earned associate's degree from Johnson County Community College in May 2017. Attending University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg pursuing bachelor's degree in nutrition and dietetics.  P. 15/47 VA FILE

14 Nov 2019—VA C & P EXAMINATION NOTE:

“Letter from friend and fellow Marine spoke to the negative work environment Veteran experienced while stationed in San Diego. He outlined harassment by higher ranking officials she experienced that he observed along with the change in Veteran's behavior and mood from positive to negative over the course of her time at the duty station.  Letter from current therapist confirmed Veteran's attendance in individual therapy since August 2019 for a total of 5 sessions to date. Also stated
Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD.

Veteran reported experiencing a sexual assault around age 15 or
16 by an unknown person during high school. She also reported experiencing subsequent depression and anxiety symptoms. She was not treated professionally nor was she diagnosed for her symptoms. Despite her symptoms, Veteran was able to continue her education and stay active in school related activities and work part-time. She completed high school, attempted college courses, and eventually enlisted in the Marines. Although she had prior
sexual assault and mental health issues, she continued to function
successfully and her symptoms were manageable enough that it did not draw attention to her family, friends, or teachers to warrant intervention.  Veteran reported experiencing 3 episodes of sexual assault during her military service. Immediately following the first incident she began having onset of depression and anxiety that interfered with her normal functioning.  As she attempted to cope, a second and third incidents occurred and her
mental health dramatically declined resulting in 3 inpatient mental health hospitalizations for suicide attempt, substance abuse, and self-harm.  It is certainly not possible to determine with exact accuracy the degree each sexual assault impacted her functioning. Yet, her observable behaviors and functioning would indicate that the sexual assaults she experienced during her military service impacted her to a greater degree and interfered with her usual functioning more than the assault which occurred during high school.  Her mental health symptoms were more severe and she was unable to maintain her usual level of functioning at work, school, or socially. Therefore, it is more likely than not that Veteran's current diagnosis of PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder are connected to the 3 military
sexual assaults which occurred during her time in the Marine Corps.”

09 Jul 2020—VA “ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION DATA, SCREEN <11>:”

 9411-POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER(70% SC) – Effective Date:  FEB 13, 2019

COMMENT:  Prior to enlistment, the Applicant has a history of having been the victim of sexual assault (rape by a stranger who then gave her crystal meth) age 15-16 resulting in residual depression and anxiety (and a significant risk of eventual recurrence/re-victimization) which, however, did not result in mental health evaluation or treatment, nor did it prevent her from completing high school,  though may have played a role in her post high school difficulty with college level work, resulting in her enlistment in the USMC where, by January 2012, she had been diagnosed with “Chronic Major Depression (EPTE), Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Substance Abuse (EPTE), and … being specifically treated at MHU…for childhood trauma that likely predisposed her to repeated sexual traumas thereafter” complications, including residual venereal disease eventuating in maladjustment and misconduct and the discharge characterization currently under appeal.  Resolving all doubt to the Applicant’s benefit, a nexus between her misconduct and the diagnosed mental health related conditions noted above appears indicated.  Moreover, it is recommended consideration be given to re-characterization of the Applicant’s discharge to Honorable/ Secretarial Authority as a matter of clemency. 	

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 Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; her entire military performance and conduct, including Proficiency/Conduct marks of 4.0/3.9; her PTSD/mental health diagnosis and treatment prior to discharge; the nexus between her misconduct and her mental/emotional stability; and the severity of her conduct in relation to her discharge characterization.  The Applicant served just approximately two and a half years of a five-year enlistment and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, a Certificate of Appreciation and four Letters of Appreciation.  Her severe mental health condition compromised her ability to maintain standards.  

In consideration for all these factors, to include weighing the severity of the misconduct in relation to the assigned characterization/narrative for discharge, the Board determined that the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief primarily based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.  Clemency also includes substitution for good cause an administrative discharge for an executed punitive discharge or dismissal in select cases.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service to Honorable is appropriate.  Relief granted.

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 Board held that it is authorized to make a change to the narrative reason for discharge; reasserted (without necessarily repeating in this section) all the reasons stated above for warranting a change to the characterization of service, and summarized the following considerations concerning the change to the narrative reason for discharge.  Specifically, the Board held that the narrative reason for separation should be Secretarial Authority.  Again reasserting all the reasons stated above that supported the Board’s decision to warrant a change to the characterization of service, and in accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the Board held that mitigation should also be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In other words, the Board found that because the Applicant’s Mental Health excused/mitigated the maliciousness/willful nature of the misconduct enough to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of service then it also rationally applied to the narrative reason for which the Applicant was discharged.  In essence, the Board found that the underlying narrative reason for the Applicant’s discharge is not misconduct, but the Applicant’s inability for continued naval service.  As such, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed honorable with a commensurate narrative reason for discharge.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Additional NDRB Reviews: After receiving a NDRB Document Review, an Applicant remains eligible for a Personal Appearance/Telephonic Hearing if the application is received by the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claim(s) related to their discharge as well as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing by an Attorney (or Advocate) is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  However, if you have been discharged for more than 15 years, already had a personal appearance hearing, or otherwise exhausted your opportunity to be heard by the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Appeal Procedures on NDRB Decision: If you contest the NDRB’s decision in your case AND you already contested the NDRB’s previous decision at a Personal Appearance Hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunity before the NDRB (or it has been more than 15 years since your discharge), the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.  The BCNR is the highest level of administrative review within the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps to correct errors or injustices to member’s records.

Complaint Procedures on Format: If you believe the decision in your case is ambiguous, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity (JSRA), OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the DoD Instruction 1332.28 before submitting such a complaint.  This complaint procedure does not permit a challenge on the merits of the NDRB’s decision; the JSRA is designed solely to ensure that the NDRB decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  Therefore, if you are contesting the merits of the NDRB’s decision and already had a NDRB personal appearance hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may appeal/petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  (See www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions).  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost – including inpatient or crisis residential care for up to 30 days and outpatient care for up to 90 days.  Veterans do not need to be enrolled in the VA system to use this benefit.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations. 

Employment/Educational Opportunities: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & (d)(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.  If the Applicant’s claim of PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to: Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board, 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309, Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text 274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost; you can use this benefit regardless of your discharge status, or enrollment in VA health care.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance, see Find your nearest VA medical center.