ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20211110
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Narrative Reason change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	           	Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20050829	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20061019	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  01  Month(s)  21  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  36
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.9 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.0 (NFIR)
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  NDSM GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20060719:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
	Article 107 (False official statements) x5
	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Awarded:   
	Suspended:  

- 20060807:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) x3
	Awarded:  RIR RESTR EPD FOP
	Suspended:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20060601:	For violation of article 86 x2.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20080227
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  MD08-00057
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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 military sexual trauma (MST) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were mitigating factors in her misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20221216		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 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 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 107 (False official statements)
Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant contends MST and PTSD were mitigating factors 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 mitigated the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience 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	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unknown	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Administrative Clerk.  29 August 2005 to 10 October 2006.  OTH misconduct - NJPs 19 July 2006 Article 92 did not obey written order, 107 x5 false official statement; 7 August 2006 86 x3 UA.  Also had article 111 reckless operation vehicle.  Claims PTSD, sexual assault/harassment related.  Claims on 26 April 2006 sexually assaulted on multiple occasions by superiors.  Claims got pregnant, command did not believe leading her to have misconduct.  Had negative pregnancy tests, quantitative <5 and qualitative negative on 8 July 2006.  Claimed to have had positive pregnancy tests at home May and June 2006, had MVA 7 July 2006, claims lost baby in MVA.  Also had ultrasound that did not confirm pregnancy.  No Ob/Gyn appointments in medical record.  Mental health one appointment 19 July 2006 diagnosed with suspected Munchausen’s syndrome.  No evidence in record of reported sexual assault or treatment for sexual assault during service.  Medical officer opinion is that there are grounds for an upgrade at this point to General based on totality of the misconduct being inconsistent with OTH.	

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  In this case, the Board found insufficient evidence in the record for any indications of, or diagnosis for, a Mental Health Diagnosis stemming from PTSD and MST, which would substantiate a connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and challenges incurred from a mental health condition.  The Board thoroughly reviewed civilian and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical documentation indicating diagnoses for PTSD and MST 14 years after the Applicant’s discharge.  However, the NDRB is not bound by either, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB.  Decisions reached by 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.

While the Board found an upgrade based on equity appropriate, it did not find full relief warranted due to numerous inconsistencies in the Applicant’s statements throughout her hearing, as well as dissimilarities in her statements compared to VA records.  The Applicant told the Board she was raped five times over the course of April and May 2006 and subsequently had a positive at home pregnancy test at the end of May 2006.  She initially stated her first sexual assault was by a sergeant in mid-April 2006 after checking into the School of Infantry (SOI) as an administrative clerk.  She later went on to say during her hearing this assault took place in the beginning of April and the Board noted documentation from Veterans Affairs updated on 15 April 2020 indicated the assault occurred on 18 April 2006 while she was on a 24-hour duty at her new command.  

However, the Applicant’s OMPF documented she checked into SOI on 26 April 2006 after finishing MOS school the day prior and the Board found it highly unlikely she would have occupied the barracks of, or been on duty for, a command she did not belong to in the beginning/mid-April timeframe.  Furthermore, the Applicant told the Board she had recently showered and then fallen asleep when this Sergeant entered her barracks room and assaulted her.  Typically, 24 hour duties do not provide an opportunity for Marines to sleep in their own barracks room, rather Marines are provided a bed in a duty hut if their duty allows for sleep.  In addition to her sexual assault by the aforementioned Sergeant, the Applicant told the Board she was sexually assaulted by a Staff Sergeant, and another Sergeant had attempted to assault her but she fought off his advances.  She also initially stated the Staff Sergeant worked in the motor pool and was not in her chain of command (CoC), but later noted he was in her direct reporting CoC.  The Board noted in VA documentation submitted with her DD Form 293 the Applicant never mentioned a sexual assaulted by a Staff Sergeant, rather assaults by two Sgts who were both in the motor pool and who would not have been in her CoC as an administrative clerk at the SOI.

In addition to the aforementioned discrepancies, the Board noted the Applicant indicated early on in her hearing she had informed her CoC she was pregnant and had notified them of military medical appointments.  This included a conversation with her First Sergeant.  However, the Board’s medical doctor found no scheduled military medical appointments, cancellations, or no-shows documented in her service records.  When questioned about this by the Board’s doctor, the Applicant said it was because she had made all her appointments with civilian medical providers out in town so other Marines in her CoC would not find out she was pregnant.  This was a contradiction to her previous statements to the Board and to documentation related to her first NJP for multiple violations of UCMJ Article 107 – one of which was for telling a Staff Sergeant she was seen and tested positive at the Naval hospital on 12 June 2006 for pregnancy, which was false.  In-service medical documentation indicated the first pregnancy test administered by military medical providers to the Applicant was on 8 July 2006 and the results came back negative.  The Applicant indicated she was involved in a motor vehicle accident a few weeks after her positive at home pregnancy test in late May and believed she lost her pregnancy from this accident.  However, documentation showed the Applicant was involved in this accident on 7 July 2006 and her military pregnancy test was administered the next day.  When the Board asked the Applicant how she knew she miscarried, she stated because she tested positive on her at home test in May and negative on military tests in July (blood and ultrasound).  She did not indicate to the Board she had any physical or visual indications of a miscarriage, and the Board found it highly unlikely she would have not experienced symptoms of a miscarriage.

In addition to multiple violations of Article 107 the Applicant was charged at her first NJP for reckless driving – 100 mph in a 70 mph zone, failing to yield during a turn that caused an accident, and operating a motor vehicle without a valid state license.  When asked if she had a driver’s license the Applicant told the Board it was an Alabama license and she was told by North Carolina police it was not valid in the state of North Carolina.  The Board found this statement perplexing and when pressed with follow on questions, she mentioned a permit.  The Board concluded it was likely the Applicant possessed a driver’s permit issued in her home state of Alabama and did not have an Alabama driver’s license at the time.  She also noted to the Board she did not have auto insurance.

The Applicant received a retention warning counseling on 1 June 2006 for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA).  She stated the second UA was because she was in the hospital for a mini-stroke and that she had a spinal tap.  There is no medical documentation to support a stroke or a spinal tap.  Her event appeared to be a syncopal episode (fainting, or a sudden temporary loss of consciousness) that warranted an MRI.  It was the Applicant’s responsibility to contact her command and or provide medical documentation to support her absence.  The Board found it telling military medicine diagnosed the Applicant with suspected Munchausen’s syndrome – a mental health condition in which someone fabricates or induces symptoms of illness.  Additionally, physician’s assistants are a valuable medical resource capable of diagnosing and treating mental illness under the supervision of a physician.  While she contends she was not provided proper mental health treatment while in service, her commanding officer (CO) specifically mentioned in administrative separation (ADSEP) documentation she missed several scheduled medical appointments to address mental health issues she was having at the time and she failed to seek any in-service medical assistance for any of her sexual assaults.  In fact, she received her second NJP for missing medical appointments at the Camp Geiger Battalion Aid Station on 18 July 2006 and Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune on 26 July 2006.  The Board found no evidence the Applicant was denied medical treatment for any issues and considered it significant her CO acknowledged her mental health condition in ADSEP documentation, which indicated to the Board her CoC and military medical professionals were in contact regarding her medical issues at the time.  The Board would not expect a Private First Class to be privy to medical conversations about her between military medical doctors and the unit’s CO, executive officer, or sergeant major.  The Board also found it peculiar the Applicant made the decision to seek off base medical care from an OB/GYN that would have been a significant out of pocket expense for a Marine of her paygrade, but cancelled numerous appointments because she felt being at work was more important than seeking pregnancy care.  Based on her statements to the Board, no one in her CoC denied her the opportunity to attend these off base medical appointments, or any medical treatment.

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 (UOTH) 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.  The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; her entire military performance and conduct; her mental health diagnosis; the nexus between her misconduct and her mental/emotional stability; and the severity of her conduct in relation to her discharge characterization.  Consequently, the Board discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  Of note, the Board considered this case in accordance with the Kurta Memorandum, but found insufficient evidence to grant full relief.  In short, the Board noted the Applicant’s misconduct; noted her mental health claims; reviewed the severity of her misconduct in relation to the standards for assignment of an appropriate characterization of service and found that she met the minimum standard for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  In other words, the Board measured the non-felonious nature (although significant) of the Applicant’s misconduct and its criminality to find that it did not fully warrant the permanent assignment of a UOTH.  Thus, by unanimous decision, the Board found relief in the form of an upgrade in the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) warranted.  Partial relief granted.

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 the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKA1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations.

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

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or 

for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.