ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220609
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6419 [IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	            	Active:	 20090223 - 20170130  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20170131	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years  13 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20201210	Highest Rank/Rate:  SSgt
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  11  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  64
Deployment/Operation: 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  NMCAM (2) NUC GCM (3) NDSM ACM (w/2 Stars) GWOTSM HSM SSDR (2) NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan COA (2) LoA (3) MM (5)  

Periods of UA:  NONE
Period of CONF:  20201022 - 20201209, 48 days
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20200630:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 2 specifications 
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD   Suspended:  RESTR  
CC:  1

- 20181213:	Offense:  Reckless driving to endanger. 
	Sentence: NFIR.  

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20180518:	For while assigned to RS Raleigh 4th Marine Corps District on 20180212, you were found by your SNCOIC acting incoherent with slurred speech while conducting an interview with an applicant. Also on 20180512 you were involved in a vehicle accident causing severe neck and head injuries.  Although not charged with DUI, you were cited for having open alcohol containers in your vehicle.  On 20180401 you were found to be intoxicated from the previous evening and were unable to report to work.  On 20180427 you were found reeking of alcohol while conducting a High School visit. On 20180511 you were found in violation of integrity when questioned on your sobriety and location.  When contacted by your ASNCOIC concerning your prospecting goals, your speech was slurred, you were incoherent and unresponsive to questioning.  When questioned on your location, you initially stated that you were out of the office canvasing after the ASNCOIC informed you that he was actually in your office at the time of the call. 

- 20190128:	For as a result of your vehicle accident that happened on 20180213 you were convicted of reckless driving to endanger on 20181213. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20090223 UNTIL 20170130”
	  “ 20201022-20201209 (48)”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16), effective 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 he warrants an upgrade based on his in-service conduct. 
2.	The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.
3.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20230606		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from March to October 2011 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution. 

The Applicant's record of service included:

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

Issues 1-3: The Applicant contends he warrants an upgrade based on his in-service conduct; contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident; and further contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his 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 – TBI, PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, Severe Alcohol Use Disorder, (military)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, testimony, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant, a Marine veteran with a history of a combat deployment, was separated in lieu of court martial in 2020.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contend he was not given a chance to mitigate or correct his single mistake of eleven continuous years of active service.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been awarded 60% service-connected disability by the VA (30% for PTSD).

Brief timeline:
23 Feb 2009 - Enlistment
19 Mar – 06 Oct 2011 – OEF deployment
09 Aug – 11 Oct 2012 – Operation Martillo (USSOUTHCOM)
14 – 27 Nov 2013 – Operation Damayan (Philippines)
~ 2014 – Deployment to Australia
22 Jul 2017 – Arrived for duty – USMC RS Raleigh NC
12 Feb 2018 – ARI (during applicant interview)
13 Feb 2018 – DWI (BAC > .20 by report) – injury to neck
29 Mar 2018 – Neck surgery 
01 Apr 2018 – Unfit for duty (prior consumption of alcohol)
27 Apr 2018 – ARI (reeking of alcohol during high school visit)
11 May 2018 – ARI (false official statement to ASNCOIC)
13 Dec 2018 – Conviction for Reckless Driving to Endanger
16 Jan 2019 – Completed outpatient alcohol rehabilitation
31 Oct 2019 – Relieved for Cause from recruiting duty
29 Feb 2020 – Arrive for duty – MWSS-272
20 Jun 2020 – Arrested for DUI (BAC .28)
30 Jun 2020 – NJP (Art 92 x 2) – DUI, revoked license
23 Jul – 20 Aug 2020 – Inpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation (SARP Level III)
02 Sep – 07 Dec 2020 – Continuing Care Program (SARP) – incomplete
20 Oct 2020 – Fitness for Duty examination (BAC 0.042)
22 Oct 2020 – SPCM ordered based on charges: Art 86, 92x3, 107, 112x3, 112, 113, 114, 134
22 Oct –??? 2020 – Pre-trial confinement
23 Oct – 16 Nov 2020 – PTSD evaluation at Naval Medical Center Camp Lejeune
16 & 23 Nov 2020 – TBI evaluation at the Intrepid Spirit Center
10 Dec 2020 – Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	PTSD – The Applicant was diagnosed with PTSD during the final days of his career in 2020.  I was unable to find evidence, aside from the Applicant’s testimony, of PTSD symptoms prior to his inpatient alcohol rehabilitation in July of 2020.  Though I don’t find direct evidence of PTSD, I do note that all of the Applicant’s alcohol-related misconduct occurred after his 2011 deployment to Afghanistan.  Under liberal consideration guidelines, I think it as-likely-as-not the Applicant suffered from lingering mental health effects post-deployment, likely leading to his self-medication through alcohol.  
2.	TBI – multiple incidents of TBI were noted in the Applicant’s record, however, the most significant was a head/neck injury suffered in the Applicant’s 2018 DWI.  Review of the ISC notes do not indicate significant post-concussive sequelae from the Applicant’s head trauma.  The impact of TBI on the Applicant’s alcohol use remains unknown.
3.	Alcohol Dependence – this is the crux of the case, as all of the Applicant’s misconduct relates to his dependence on alcohol.  Given his reported symptoms from OEF, I find it as-likely-as not that the Applicant began to self-medicate with alcohol in 2011 and the steady use of alcohol led to frank dependence by 2018.  Given also the stressful change in the Applicant’s career at that time (recruiting duty), his alcohol dependence (now Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe) appears to have taken over his life and drove his poor decision making (e.g., numerous drunk on duty incidents, 2-3 DUIs, etc.).  Given the information provided in #1, I can link the Applicant’s alcohol use to his deployment and provide a nexus to service-connected mental health conditions.  I also question if/why the recruiting command took an extended period to provide alcohol-related screening/counseling for the Applicant.
4.	As stated in the Kurta memo, "[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI... and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances."  In this case, though the Applicant’s misconduct was especially egregious, it all relates to behavior associated with his alcohol dependence.  Commonly, severe alcohol dependence requires multiple courses of inpatient treatment, treatment of concomitant mental health conditions (e.g., PTSD), and closely structured follow-on programs.  The confluence of evidence appears that this Applicant frequently “fell through the cracks” at his command, possibly due to COVID-19 restrictions.  Without the proper care, the Applicant’s return to alcohol-fueled misconduct was likely.  In balancing the misconduct against these circumstances, I find in favor of the Applicant.
5.	In reviewing the Wilke Criteria for determining equity, injustice, or clemency grounds – I find several factors contributing to this case including:
a.	Applicant’s candor and acceptance of responsibility
b.	Harsh nature of the punishment
c.	Character references & letters of recommendation
d.	Evidence of rehabilitation
e.	Positive post-service accomplishments

Based this information, I do find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.	

The Applicant served over 11 years of service with the United States Marine Corps.  During this time, the Applicant had multiple alcohol related incident that included two incidents of driving under the influence of alcohol, multiple incidents of showing up to work intoxicated, and an incident of having an open container of alcohol in the car while driving.  While the Applicant claims that his separation was based on an isolated incident of alcohol abuse, his record shows that the Applicant struggled with alcohol for a number of years prior to his separation.  Additionally, the Applicant had numerous alcohol related incidents throughout the latter part of his career. 

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 determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included one nonjudicial punishment, two retention warning counseling’s, and was referred to Special Court Martial for significant alcohol related incidents; this was a failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of PTSD, coupled with additional post-service documentation provided by the Applicant, support the Applicant’s contention that his PTSD was a mitigating factor associated with the in-service misconduct.  Moreover, the NDRB determined that the unique circumstances of this individual case, coupled with the documented PTSD diagnosis, and the Applicant’s service in combat, warranted additional consideration in the determination of overall characterization of service.

After a thorough review of the Applicant’s official and medical files, the NDRB was able to note a nexus between the Applicant’s mental health and his alcohol use.  The NDRB Medical Officer noted that the Applicant was likely suffering from PTSD as a result of his combat deployment to Afghanistan. His alcohol use was then exacerbated by both the stressors of recruiting duty as well as the issues surrounding the COVID-19 isolation. The NDRB Medical Officer also noted that there is a likelihood that the Applicant did not receive the target treatment that he needed due to the constraints of operations during the pandemic.  

Given the overall service of the Applicant, which included a combat deployment, and the nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health, the NDRB determined and upgrade was warranted.  Thus, weighing (using the scales of liberal consideration) the Applicant’s overall performance and conduct against the standards for characterization of service, the Board held that the Applicant’s mental health issues mitigated but did not completely exonerate the misconduct and that a change in the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was appropriate.  The Board found insufficient evidence to find the Applicant could be fully absolved of his responsibility for his misconduct.

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  IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of KFS1, 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.  (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.