ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220310
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

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:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20060828	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20070228	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  00  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  01  Day(s) 
Education Level:  14	AFQT:  82
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Proficiency: 3.6 (NFIR)   Conduct: 3.6 (NFIR)   

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  NDSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20070112:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD   Suspended:  NONE  

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20070112:	For violation of article 112a, cocaine. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20090810
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD09-00930
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should include:  “SHARPSHOOTER RIFLE BADGE, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION”

The NDRB will recommend to Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until 5 June 2007, Paragraph 6210.5, 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 that her misconduct was an aberration due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from military sexual trauma (MST) and additional MST at the time of misconduct.
2.	The Applicant contends that her discharge was inequitable given later liberal consideration extended by the Hagel and Kurta Memos.
3.	The Applicant contends that her discharge was improper due to an incomplete and inaccurate description of behavior.
4.	The Applicant contends that her otherwise exemplary service record and outstanding post-service conduct are deserving of an upgrade to Honorable.

Discussion

Date:  20230425	 (VTC)	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.  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 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 

Issues 1-4:  The Applicant contends that her misconduct was an aberration due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from military sexual trauma (MST) and additional MST at the time of misconduct; contends that her discharge was inequitable given later liberal consideration extended by the Hagel and Kurta Memos; contends that her discharge was improper due to an incomplete and inaccurate description of behavior; and further contends that her otherwise exemplary service record and outstanding post-service conduct are deserving of an upgrade to Honorable.

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 (during USMC enlistment, likely undiagnosed MST, PTSD and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression were likely active)  	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, in some form but not diagnosed	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes, mitigating but not entirely exculpating	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	The circumstances warranted a more comprehensive mental health evaluation.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	 
PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

18 April 1981:  DOB per DD FORM 214

Education Level: 14 

MEPS:  AFQT—82   

25 Jul 2006 —ENLISTMENT for 5-year term: @ Age 25 

28 Aug 2006—USMC Recruit Training:
promoted to fourth squad leader, then guide. [Applicant] was meritoriously promoted to Lance Corporal. (Exhibit 1) 

22 Nov 2006:   “She was the honor graduate of her platoon. (See Exhibit 2) She received The Molly Marine Award and a Certificate of Commendation at graduation on 22 November 2006…The statement of Gunnery Sergeant Splitter, a fellow recruit at the time, attests to [Applicant]'s outstanding leadership skills…” as did a 13 Nov 2006 congratulatory letter to her father from the Lt Col Commanding Officer.”  

28 Feb 2007—Per submitted “Statement of Facts:… [Applicant] was given the standard ten day boot leave and then recruiter's assistance duty before reporting at MCT Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune, NC. The Marine that reported to Camp Geiger was not the same confident and accomplished Marine that graduated first in her platoon. She was broken. [Applicant] tested positive for cocaine. She was demoted to PFC, went through the administrative and NJP process without counsel, and was separated from the Corps by discharge under less than honorable conditions 28 February 2007…

It is apparent that something happened after basic that caused her tailspin and ended a promising career in the Corps. As is detailed in her personal statement (Exhibit 8), [Applicant] was, likely “sexually harassed and abused by her male Marine counterparts while performing her recruiter duties. She was sexually abused at a party on Christmas Eve, 2006 by fellow Marines and soldiers. She was forced and intimidated to drink excessively and unknowingly given illegal drugs against her will. This detailed information was not elicited during the administrative and NJP process. She was intimidated by the investigators and interrogators.  She was numb, exhibiting clear symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). [Applicant] was a victim of Military Sexual Trauma (MST). She self-medicated for her PTSD symptoms. She felt shame and guilt and her condition made it more likely to make poor choices.”  

NJP:  1

- 20070112:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD     Suspended:  NONE     

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20070112:	For violation of article 112a, cocaine

02 Feb 2007—ADSEP LTR
“3. While PFC [Applicant] stated she resisted peer pressure for several hours at a party where drugs were being used openly, she failed to uphold the honor, courage, and commitment she was taught in boot camp. [the following is staunchly denied by Applicant] PFC [Applicant] stated she had the presence of mind to resist drugs when she believed it would [not] be detected, but was willing to use cocaine when told she could do so without being caught. PFC [Applicant] has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the rules and regulations that govern good order and discipline and has no potential for further service.”

28 Feb 2007—OTH DISCHARGE:
ENLISTMENT Details: RANK: E2/PFC; MISCONDUCT / DRUG COCAINE
 Highest Rank/Rate:  
 Performance/Proficiency: 3.6 (1)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.6 (1

POST SEPARATION:

Reported general achievements include:

POST-SERVICE:
Raising son [now 16 yo]; Involved in community and church
Phi Theta Kappa 
UAS Remote Pilot
[Academic pursuits]
Clean criminal and driving record

06 Oct 2008—PSYCH NP, NH Camp Pendleton, CA AHLTA Note on 
“[Applicant] DOB: 18 Apr 1981:
History of present illness. The Patient is a 27 yo he following concerns are being addressed: reunification with spouse after termination of MPO [Military Protective Order]; understanding of his PTSD.

[In PDF titled “steeves_vanessa_elizabeth_7204_…”  (P. 40/120)]
06 Oct 2008:  “[Applicant]   DOB: 18 Apr 1981…LMP: 29 Apr 2007.
SO Note Written by POGGI, @ 06 Oct 2008 1648 PDT
Reason for Visit
Visit for: Individual Counseling.
History of present illness
The Patient is a 27 year old female.
The following concerns are being addressed: reunification with spouse after termination of MPO; understanding of his PTSD [bolding added]…
A/P Written by POGGI, @ 06 Oct 2008 1652 PDT
1. Inquiry And Counseling: For Marital Conflict
Procedure(s):    -BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COUNSELING AND THERAPY, PER 15 MINUTES x 3
Disposition Written by POGGI, PATRICIA KAY @ 06 Oct 2008 1652 PDT
Released w/o Limitations…
Signed By POGGI, (Physician/Workstation, NH Camp Pendleton, CA) @ 06 Oct 2008 1653
Co-Signed By DREW, BRIAN J (PSYCH NP, NH Camp Pendleton, CA) @ 08 Oct 2008 1641”

27 Oct 2009—NDRB DECISION LETTER:  NO CHANGE WARRANTED.
“[Applicant] has been undergoing treatment with mental health providers
since her discharge.  She has been diagnosed with PTSD related to MST. She has a secondary diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) related to the above. The diagnoses and causal connection to traumatic active-duty experiences she suffered are clearly delineated in the narrative report of V.E. Shay…a licensed mental health therapist., a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner also confirms the PTSD and MDD diagnoses.”

15 Apr 2013—Support Letter from Healing Concepts, LLC, West Chester and Center City…:  PTSD & Generalized Anxiety Disorder” without elaborating text.   

05 Aug 2016—LCSW Letter: Lists prescriptions for gabapentin, lorazepam and Zoloft, presumably to “Facilitate management of anxiety ADDING –over possible divorce 7/1/16 Continue: Will try to play guitar…make a painting or write, or write a song for next session…sidelined by mother’s injury…” also noting prescriptions for Trazodone, and Prazosin…”

12 Jan 2023—CECIL COLLEGE: acknowledging qualification for President’s List for a 3.75 GPA.

27 Mar 2023—Letter:  Induction into Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society.

COMMENT:  

1.	Against a background of having been the product of a military family and a somewhat dysfunctional parental marriage but, also a family situation from which she drew constructive achievement values and innate intelligence (85 AFQT score), she demonstrated both academic excellence and significant acting/entertainment talent along with athletic ability during both high school and, 2 years of college.  At that point, apparently, re-thinking her economic and academic situation, as well as her military family tradition led her to consider a Military Service career, eventually, settling on the Marine Corps. 
2.	 The Applicant launched her USMC career demonstrating the time-honored dictum to “hit the tarmac running” resulting in ‘top of her class’ official recognition (early promotion to LCPL, etc.) and further recognition in the form of selection for the much coveted “Molly Marine” award.  Such must have created great expectations for her future in the Marine Corps as she embarked on her 10 day post boot camp leave period from which she, unfortunately, returned an unfortunately changed Marine.  Having been allegedly greeted in a crude debasing way at the site of her Recruiter Assistant assignment, ought to have alerted her she was at risk for being the target of overt sexual harassment, if not overt Military Sexual Trauma (MST).  Piecing together her recollections of what transpired through a variably amnestic veil, she yielded to social pressure to attend a  Christmas Eve party and, while having a assigned a “Designated Driver,” she failed to monitor his behavior, while she yielded to social pressure to imbibe obviously alcoholic beverages, even if she, as she now, states, did not voluntarily or knowingly yield to external pressure to try cocaine [even] under any circumstances only to fall prey to having further consumed obviously alcohol spiked beverages, allegedly, resulting in MST and, popping positive for Cocaine in a urinalysis 1-2 days later, thereby  leading to the OTH discharge, now under appeal.  Following her 2009 discharge, her situation was, apparently, further complicated by her husband’s diagnosed PTSD and the responsibilities attending the raising of their, now, 16 year old son.  Worthy of mention is the fact that, despite her OTH discharge, her superior officers have rallied to support her in her quest for elevation of the Character of her discharge.  Since discharge, she has seen a variety of mental health counselling professionals, and church resources.  Unfortunately, the resources consulted tend to be below the academic credentials required by the uniformed services, and, worse, limit their consultations to a terse mention of diagnoses (usually, PTSD) without further elaboration or documentation which limits their probative clinical value.  All that said, the Applicant’s testimony does present a compelling narrative punctuated by hesitations and what appear to be tearful pauses and the circumstances surrounding her processing suggest the presence of mitigating circumstances favoring a less punitive approach could well have been pursued.  So, the data favors a diagnosis in the PTSD-Mood Disorder-Adjustment Disorder spectrum was active.  Accordingly, mitigation, short of explication would appear indicated.  Finally, given the above historic sequence, consideration of relief would appear indicated in the interest of propriety and equity.  	

Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service.  The Applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of Article 112a for wrongful use of controlled substances after testing positive for cocaine at 395 nanograms per milliliter on 3 January 2007.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.

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.  An Uncharacterized discharge is warranted when separation is initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) or General are authorized or Honorable is clearly warranted. 

In this case, the Board found that based on the entry-level status of the Applicant, and the singularity and nature of the misconduct, the Board found an Uncharacterized discharge is appropriate.  In making its determination the Board considered the Applicant’s contention that her discharge was incomplete and inaccurate description of behavior, referencing an interview she had with the Commanding Officer (CO) in which she was ineffective in conveying to the CO the conditions under which she was led to consume cocaine and feared he had arrived at incorrect conclusions about the conditions leading to and nature of her misconduct.  While the Board concedes the Applicant’s performance during boot camp was exceptional, leading to her assignment as the Platoon Guide, recognition with the “Molly Marine” Award, second meritorious promotion as company honor grad for the training series, awarding of a Certificate of Commendation and Proficiency/Conduct marks of 4.0/4.0 prior to her misconduct, the Board also found the Applicant ultimately failed to uphold the Marine Corps core values of honor, courage, and commitment.

The Applicant further contends that her post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided a petition, records of academic achievement including induction into Phi Theta Kappa, evidence of employment, evidence of a clean criminal and driving record, and eight character references, including compelling testimony from Marine leaders from her chain of command at the time of misconduct and her former senior drill instructor.  While post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review, the Board did find the Applicant’s contrition and assumption of responsibility for her misconduct compelling.  The Board also found the harassment to which the Applicant was subjected while assigned to Recruiter Assistance duty did not provide a supportive environment that might have enabled her resilience and success, and ultimately did her a disservice in leaving her vulnerable to excessive drinking and making poor decisions that led to her misconduct.  The Board determined that the characterization of service received was proper at the time considering the UCMJ violation, but found that it was no longer equitable given the passage of time, the Applicant’s misconduct and post service conduct, and the continued negative impact of her UOTHC discharge.  Consequently, by unanimous decision, the Board found a change in characterization of service to Uncharacterized is appropriate. 

Note that in accordance with the Marine Corps Separation Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) with respect to non-service related administrative matters, i.e., Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) benefits, civilian employment, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered as the equivalent of an honorable or general, under honorable conditions characterization.

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  UNCHARACTERIZED, the narrative reason for separation shall  ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of JGA1, and the reentry code shall  RE-3F.  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.