ex- LT, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220322
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge:    SECNAVINST 1920.6C 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	          	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20150610	Age at Enlistment:  26
Years Contracted:  indef
Date of Discharge:  20180430	Highest Rank/Rate:  LT
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  21  Day(s)
Education Level:  20	
Deployment/Operation: NONE

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions): Fitness Reports: Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM GWOTSM               

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

Retention Warning Counseling: NONE SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20170427:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: LETTER OF REPRIMAND Suspended:  NONE

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:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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 post-service conduct is deserving of consideration for an upgrade. 
2.  The Applicant states that his discharge is inequitable as his command was unjust in their treatment of him. 
3.  The Applicant contends that his misconduct is mitigated by mental health challenges that he was experiencing due to 
      symptoms being exacerbated by personal and professional stressors that caused him to self-medicate.   

Discussion

Date:  20220921		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.  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) 

:  The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct is deserving of consideration for an upgrade. 

The Applicant contends his 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 personal statement, medical documentation for consideration, and character references.  However, 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 determined that the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.  Relief denied.  

Issue 2:  The Applicant states that his discharge is inequitable as his command was unjust in their treatment of him. 

The Applicant states that his discharge is inequitable as his command was unjust and harsh in their treatment of him. Cited within the application, the Applicant states he was subject to racial discrimination, a victim of retribution for reporting an issue against the command and that health privacy issues were violated in order to impact him professionally. The Applicant states that these incidents led to the anonymous reporting of his drug use and ultimately the inequitable administrative separation and assignment of a General discharge characterization. 

In a thorough review of the record of evidence, which included the documents submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB did not identify any mistreatment or targeted disciplinary actions against the Applicant. Issues cited by the Applicant are either not supported as they exist only as statements and opinions of the Applicant; or the issues were investigated by the command with conclusive positions of closure with no findings. With regard to the claim of retribution for reporting racially discriminatory treatment of patients, the Applicant provides only speculation as to this being the reason his drug use was anonymously reported without recognizing the extreme professional conflict his self-medication with marijuana presented. His HIPPA violation complaint was investigated and it was determined that the information he said was leaked and used against him did not meet criteria for a violation. Any circumstances regarding his allegations was found not to be relevant to his misconduct and cleared through normal protocols. Although the Applicant raises multiple circumstances to support his claims of discrimination and mistreatment he fails to overcome the findings of the command when the issues were looked into and is deficient in overcoming government regularity. The Board was not able to identify or substantiate any of the claims raised by the Applicant within his application. 

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.  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.  Relief is denied. 

Issue 3:  The Applicant contends that his misconduct is mitigated by mental health challenges that he was experiencing due to 
symptoms being exacerbated by personal and professional stressors that caused him to self-medicate.   

The Applicant contends that his misconduct is mitigated by mental health challenges that were exacerbated to a degree that he sought means to self-medicate. Overwhelmed by personal and professional stressors, the Applicant resorted to regularly using marijuana in an effort to assist with his ability to cope with the undue stress and help with getting sleep. The Applicant provides documentation substantiating mental health challenges for depression, anxiety, psychosocial stress issues and sleep apnea. While the Applicant did seek treatment while he was on active duty to address these issues, the complexity of forces working against his mental state overpowered the treatment and therapy he was receiving to a degree that caused him to seek alternative relief. It is this duress and strain, created by the environment the Applicant was forced to operate in and endure, that caused him to seek relief with the use of a banned substance. 

Accounting for all factors cited by the Applicant, to include his post-service diagnosis and treatment, the Board exercised liberal consideration when reviewing all factors associated with the Applicant’s drug use. The Applicant received a General discharge characterization which represents consideration and acknowledgement of positive aspects of service. Thus given the severity of the Applicant’s decision to violate the service drug policy, as a practicing medical resident, the NDRB found that mitigation had already been applied at the time of discharge to the Applicant’s discharge characterization. Despite the stress the Applicant states he was experiencing, the Board did not identify any grounds or reason to believe that he was incapable of understanding right from wrong and that resorting to substance abuse was an irresponsible decision and a willful act of misconduct. As a commissioned officer, the Applicant is expected to exercise greater moral courage and integrity when faced with adversity and the decision to self-medicate with a banned substance is a violation of the trust and confidence emplaced in him as a medical professional and military officer.  Relief is denied.   
     
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.  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.  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.  In making its determination, the Board was not capable of substantiating the claims of discrimination and inequitable treatment cited by the Applicant nor conclude his deviation from the standards of conduct allowed for clemency. Given the limited tenure of service, severity of misconduct and lack of significant achievement the Board found that leniency and mitigation had been applied at the time of separation. 

The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his drug use and his 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. 

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that mitigated the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION 

1.	Does the available record reasonably support PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?	Yes – Major Depressive Disorder, Substance Use Disorder, Severe (military); Major Depressive Disorder (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (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.

The Applicant contends (in part) his mental health condition, family and personal problems, and a hostile work environment mitigate his misconduct.

Abbreviated timeline:
10 Jun 2015 – Started surgical internship
Jul – Sep 2015 – Fails 2 out of 3 surgical rotations (1 month/each) 
27 Oct 2015 – Diagnosis of Unspecified Depressive Disorder (rule out Major Depressive Disorder) (Per Applicant, reportedly started in Nov 2014).  Psychotherapy and medications.
~Nov-Dec 2015 – placed on academic probation
17 Dec 2015 – Last counseling session until April of 2016.  Reports improvement in mood, though struggling academically.  Possible leave of absence between December and April?
27 Apr 2016 – Applicant reported possible termination due to another failed surgical rotation (unknown date).  Organization and fund of knowledge cited as rationale.  
06 May 2016 – Diagnosed with social phobia.  Appears to be failing an additional rotation, according to Applicant’s statements.  
1 Jul 2016 – Begins Transitional Year Internship 
Jan 2017 – ICU Patient Report (maltreatment) 
17 Jan 2017 – Command-directed mental health evaluation, diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (moderate, recurrent).  Psychiatrist notes possible “labeling” by command.
13 Feb 2017 – 3.5 month probation issued (letter from PD)
5/6 Mar 2017 – Anonymous email and command-directed UA
31 Mar 2017 - + THC finding 
4 Apr 2017 – Removed from patient care duties
11 Apr 2017 – Command-directed mental health evaluation (result not found in record, though found FFFD)
27 Apr 2017 – CO’s Mast (Art 112a)
8 May 2017 – SARP Screening
12 -25 Jul 2017 – Outpatient Substance/Alcohol Treatment.
12 Jul 2017 – Positive UA for THC (medical screen)
24 Jul 2017 – Positive UA for THC (medical screen)
Apr 2018 – Separation
 
This case balances the mental stressors (some specific and some more general) of a newly-graduated medical doctor with significant misconduct.  Acknowledging the diagnoses of the mental health staff at NMCSD and those in the VA, I believe the Applicant had Major Depressive Disorder.  This was caused by a number of stressors: 
•	Separation from his spouse 
•	Disharmony with his parents (caused by his marriage)
•	Poor performance in his surgical and transitional year rotations
•	Interpersonal difficulties with various staff members
•	A perception of discrimination and unfair treatment (including the HIPPA incident)
•	The stress of the intern year

However, while these stressors certainly made this two-year period difficult on the Applicant, the egregious nature of his misconduct cannot be overlooked.  The Wilkie Memorandum directs many considerations in the application of relief including aggravating and mitigating factors, the severity of the misconduct, acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct, job history, and evidence of rehabilitation.  Clearly, this case demonstrates an underperforming medical intern (doctor) with pre-existing depression from family stressors, who continues to have difficulty (for a host of reasons) gaining the requisite knowledge, clinical skill, and personal demeanor and appearance to graduate internship.  As evidence by SARP records, the Applicant begins using marijuana frequently well before the ICU maltreatment incident but while actively involved in patient care.  The Applicant continued his use of marijuana after his NJP and during his outpatient substance treatment.  The record lacks any evidence of remorse, acceptance, or understanding of the very serious nature of his actions.  For these reasons, I do not find a mitigating nexus between his mental health and his misconduct. 	

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 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  MISCONDUCT (OTHER) with a corresponding separation code of GKM.  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.