ex-LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160421
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 1005 [COMPLETION OF SERVICE OBLIGATION] 

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:  20020805	Age at Enlistment:  19
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20060804	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  00  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  41
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.1 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.9 (NFIR)   
Fitness Reports: 

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20040219:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation), 2 specifications
	Article 134 (General article), 3 specifications
	Awarded: FOP RIR RESTR EPD  Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  6

- 20040220:	For NJP for violation of articles 91, 92, and 134 of the UCMJ.  

- 20040316:	For assignment to BCP due to failure to maintain body standards.  

- 20040714:	For unsatisfactory performance while assigned to BCP. 

- 20040922:	For removal from the BCP program. 

- 20050105:	For failure to meet weight/body fat reduction goals while assigned to BCP for second assignment.  

- 20060718:	For receiving a General (under honorable conditions) discharge due to failure to meet Prof/Con marks of 3.0/4.0 and will be receiving a reenlistment code of RE-3P due to failure to maintain Marine Corps height and weight standards.    

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	MD16-00942
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	20160421
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.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 September 2001 until 05 June 2007, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION.

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 that his mental health condition mitigated his misconduct.
2.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade to receive the GI Bill.

Discussion

Date:  20230120		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.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW: 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.  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 March to April 2005 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant contends that his mental health condition mitigated his misconduct.  The Applicant is seeking a change to his characterization of service. 

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 not have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition did not exist during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	No Navy; Yes, VA	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Unknown	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Unknown 	
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:	(Use continuation sheet for additional comments as needed)

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:  

25 May 2001:  HUMBLE HIGH SCHOOL  Humble, TX. GRADUATION DIPLOMA

MEPS: 
AFQT:  41

USMC ENLISTMENT:  05 AUG 2002 @19 YO

NJP:  1

- 20040219:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation), 2 specifications
	Article 134 (General article), 3 specifications
	Awarded: FOP RIR RESTR EPD  Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  6

- 20040220:	For NJP for violation of articles 91, 92, and 134 of the UCMJ.  

- 20040316:	For assignment to BCP due to failure to maintain body standards.  

- 20040714:	For unsatisfactory performance while assigned to BCP. 

- 20040922:	For removal from the BCP program. 

- 20050105:	For failure to meet weight/body fat reduction goals while assigned to BCP for second assignment.
  
AWARDS: 
20050317	20050418	2	Cl	IRAQ CAMPAIGN MEDAL	
20020805	20020805	2	NN	NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL	
20041101	20041201	2	WT	GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL	
20050201	20051231	4	MT	MERITORIOUS MAST	

AWARDS FROM:
1= Personal, 2= Service, 3= Unit, 4= Decorations TO:   TYPE CODE ENGLISH

CODE  SCHOOLS/SPECIAL SKILLS               ST DATE
808       RECRUIT TRAINING, MALE              PA  2002
M92     MARINE COMBAT TRAINING           PA
SCM    BASIC WAREHOUSEMAN MOJT      PA 2003
 
20 Feb 2004—NJP for violation of articles 91, 92, and 134 of the UCMJ

OVERWEIGHT on 08 Jun 2004
Date Onset:   Unknown              Date Reported:    08 Jun 2004
Source:     Encounter               ICD:         278.02
Comment:   NUTRITION CARE PLAN
1)   EAT FREQUENT AND REGULAR PORTION-CONTROLLED MEALS AND SNACKS
2)   AVOID LARGE PORTIONS AND CALORIE DENSE FOOD (FRIED FOOD, FAST FOOD, BUFFETS, EATING OUT)
3)   DECREASE AMOUNTS OF ADDED/HIDDEN FAT IN DIET (FATTY MEAT, SALAD DRESSING)

USMC SEPARATION:  04 Aug 2006 at rank of LCPL/E3; GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE; RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY; MBK1 SEP CODE; RE-3P.

                                                                           PROFICENCY           CONDUCT

AVERAGE MARKS IN GRADE:                           4.3                          4.1
AVERAGE MARKS IN SERVICE:                        4.1                          3.9
AVERAGE MARKS IN ENLISTMENT:               4.1                          3.9

POST USMC SEPARATION:

2006 – 2011: “After I was discharged…served honorably in the NC Army National Guard…[during which time] I was released from duty by the Medical Review board for PTSD…”  No verification of this claim was located.

11 Feb 2009—US ARMY ENLISTMENT ARNGUS (Army National Guard US):  
  
16 Jul 2009—Army Health Record Entry at Theater Facility, Theater Clinic by Theater Provider-:
History of present illness
The Patient is a 26 year old male.
° Encounter Background Information
Neurological symptoms: No neurological symptoms.
Psychological symptoms: No psychological symptoms

25 Sep 2009:  Clinic visit for “DISORDER OF KNEE JOINT / PATELLA / TIBIA / FIBULA.”

19 Mar 2010—ARMY/ARNGUS (Army National Guard US) SEPARATION:  as an SPC/EO4/HONORABLE
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  (per DD 214) COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE
Authority for Discharge:  (per DD 214) MARCORSEPMAN 1005 [COMPLETION OF SERVICE OBLIGATION] 

23. TYPE OF SEPARATION
RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY	
24. CHARACTER OF SERVICE (Include upgrades)
HONORABLE	

25. SEPARATION AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, CHAP 4	
26. SEPARATION CODE      27. REENTRY CODE
MBK         1NA	

28. NARRATIVE REASON FOR SEPARATION
COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE	

30 Dec 2013:  Effective date of original VA award of: 
     “9411-POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER(70% SC)”

05 Nov 2015—DD293 Submission included:

n.b.:  No record of a “Medical Review Board for PTSD” was found in the available documentation.[

25 Feb 2016:  VA SUMMARY OF BENEFITS LETTER included, “Your combined service-connected evaluation is: 90· PERCENT.

“15 Oct 2020  0 of 1
Sertraline 100 mg oral tablet
TAKE ONE AND ONE-HALF TABLETS BY MOUTH DAILY .NOTE DOSE CHANGE.
Discontinued  135.”     
 
COMMENT:  While the Applicant did have a history of a 1-month deployment in 2005 while on active duty (Navy/USMC), there no overt documentation of PTSD or traumatic experience representing the manifestation of any mental health related diagnostic entity including PTSD or other board-able DSM 5 entity having occurred as a result thereof until after separation from his, albeit relatively brief (post USMC discharge) Army enlistment suggesting the most likely candidate for a trigger for PTSD would be his Army National Guard enlistment.  Moreover, the misconduct resulting in his now appealed Discharge represented a substantial, repeated breach of conduct (including Article 134) and risk to good order sufficient to support the discharge characterization he received from the USMC.  Nor do the available USN/USMC Service Treatment Records (STRs) contain any significant mental health related entries (except for an isolated 15 October 2020 (about 14 years post USMC separation) Pharmacy record listing the anti-depressant Sertraline (AKA Zoloft) on a “Discontinued Medications” List without elaboration). All that said, it is, incidentally, noted, his STRs do show numerous entries related to non-mental health related conditions such as Left Knee injury residuals and Low Back Pain which may warrant separate referral to the BCNR as a matter of equity or clemency, contributing to his difficulty conforming to the requirements of the Body Composition Program (BCP).  Bottom Line:  The provided information is insufficient.  Absent further documentation, a nexus between the misconduct and a mental health related condition cannot be established.

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.  During his four year enlistment the Applicant failed to meet basic minimum standards of physical fitness and conduct.  The Applicant failed the Body Composition Program (BCP) twice and by his own admission was disrespectful to senior leaders on multiple occasions and involved in adulterous relationships with married women, including the wife of a fellow Marine.  Despite these issues, the Applicant was allowed to complete his enlistment and received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.  While the Applicant does have a diagnosis of PTSD and a combined 90% disability rating from the VA, this condition was not diagnosed after his one month deployment to Iraq as a Marine warehouse clerk in 2005, but after his six month deployment to OIF as a member of the Army National Guard.  He was subsequently separated from the Army National Guard at the end of his service obligation with a service characterization of Honorable.  The Board could not find a nexus between the Applicant’s one month Iraq deployment in 2005 and his misconduct that occurred prior to his deployment in 2004.      

In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; any possible nexus between his misconduct mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service was not appropriate.  Relief not granted. 

:  The Applicant is seeking a change to his characterization of service in order to be eligible for additional VA Benefits. 

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 and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.

However, upon administrative review the Board found the Applicant had a period of “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 2006 UNTIL 2011 in the Army National Guard that was annotated on the Applicant’s subsequent DD 214.”  Consequently, presentation to the VA of this period of “Continuous Honorable Service,” is likely to avail the Applicant of most or all VA benefits.  

The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.

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

Decision
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE with a corresponding separation code of MBK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-3P.  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.