ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20220616
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS]

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
Narrative Reason change to:  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Reentry Code change to:  RE-1A

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	             	Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20131209	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20200917	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:  06  Year(s)  09  Month(s)  17  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  88
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.4 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.5 (NFIR)  
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  NUC GCM NDSM GWOTSM SSDR (5) CoA (19) LoA (19) MM 

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

SCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:     NJP:  NONE

SPCM:  1

- 20200611:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) x2
	Article 107 (False official statements)
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) x4
	Sentence:  RIR E-1 REPRIMAND
	CA:  The sentence as adjudged is approved and ordered executed.

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20200809:	For violation of Article 112a.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20220428
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  MD21-00589
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until present, 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 the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
2.	The Applicant contends his command failed to address how post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his drug use.

Discussion

Date:  20230621		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 UCMJ:  
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
Article 107 (False official statements)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

:  The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants 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.

Despite a servicemember’s in-service performance, 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, performance, or time in service.  The Applicant was found guilty at SPCM of violation of Article 112a for possessing and using marijuana and anabolic steroids.  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 chain of command did not award a punitive discharge given the Applicant’s pretrial agreement, but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The Board found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given to others in similar circumstances.

:  The Applicant contends his command failed to address how PTSD was a mitigating factor in his drug use.

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 did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes – Major Depressive Disorder, Severe Alcohol Use 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?	No (see below)	
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, was discharged in 2020 for violating service drug policy.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends that service-connected alcohol use and mental health conditions mitigate the severity of his discharge.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been awarded 100% service-connected disability (50% for major depressive disorder).

Brief timeline:
09 Dec 2013 – Enlistment
20 Mar 2015 – Arrived for duty – VMGR 152
22 Mar 2016 – PHA conducted – no findings
23 Feb 2017 – Occupational exam – no findings
03 Mar 2017 – PHA conducted – no findings
01 Jul 2017 – Married (active duty service member)
06 Jan 2018 – Birth of 1st child
28 Feb 2018 – PHA conducted – no findings
~ Aug 2018 – Arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia
01 Oct 2018 – Diagnosed with migraine headaches
11 Jan 2019 – PHA conducted – no findings
22 Sep 2019 – Birth of 2nd child
11 Jun 2020 – SPCM (Art 92 x2, 107, 112a x4)
17 Sep 2020 – Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	Hazing/PTSD/Final Physical – the Applicant described one episode of hazing (“Blood Stripes”) around the time of putting on Corporal.  However, when reviewing the Applicant’s PCL-M, this incident does not appear to have been at the center of his mental health difficulties.  It appears that the Applicant’s focus was on his arrest.  Based on the screening performed at the Applicant’s final physical, a separate mental health evaluation should have been performed by a licensed mental health practitioner prior to discharge.  However, based on the Applicant’s testimony and relative reticence to divulge his mental health/alcohol use, I do not conclude that the Applicant’s ultimate discharge characterization would have changed.
2.	Alcohol Use Disorder – I find it more-likely-than-not that the Applicant’s alcohol use disorder likely started in 2015 and was untreated during his active duty service.  However, per his testimony, the reason the Applicant’s alcohol use remained untreated was a deliberate underreporting of alcohol use by the Applicant on twice-yearly occupational health examinations.
3.	Marijuana – I do find a possible nexus between the Applicant’s alcohol and marijuana use with his depressive disorder.
4.	Steroid use – Unlike marijuana, anabolic steroids are not typical drugs of abuse and not typically associated with mood disorders (unless directly causing them).  As stipulated in the Kurta memo, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI…”  The Applicant, by testimony, made a premeditated plan to use steroids over a protracted period (including bringing in the supplies and conducting research).  I find this use falls outside the liberal consideration guidelines provided for in Wilke and Kurta.
5.	Final conclusion – 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."  The balance of evidence in this case shows significant, premeditated misconduct (introduction of marijuana and anabolic steroids into the nation of Japan).  Further, though likely suffering from alcohol use disorder, evidence shows the Applicant remained fit for duty and was capable of making rational, goal-directed decisions, especially as a Sergeant of Marines, in obeying regulations. 	

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  However, the Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnoses to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct.  Additionally, the NDRB is not bound by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB.  Decisions reached by the VA to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Navy.  The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy and Marine Corps when determining a member’s discharge characterization.

The Applicant contends a mental health condition, stemming from PTSD, was the contributing factor to his drug use and subsequent separation from the Corps.  During his hearing the Applicant detailed frequent alcohol use, a failure to fit in with Marines in his maintenance shop, mental struggles given his overall smaller stature, and a blood striping incident by Marines in 

his command after he was promoted to Corporal.  Despite these acknowledged issues and struggles, the Applicant’s record painted a Marine who was meritoriously prompted to E4, worked his way up the maintenance qualification ladder by obtaining a collateral duty inspector certification, was awarded a Good Conduct Medal and Meritorious Mast, achieved the rank of E5, and racked up numerous Letters of Appreciation and Certifications of Achievement.

The Applicant went on to communicated he began taking over the counter supplements in an effort to gain strength and mass in early 2018.  In the June or July 2018 timeframe he traveled to California on annual leave to visit family.  During this period of leave the Applicant used marijuana and purchased anabolic steroids, despite being enlisted on a marijuana waiver.  He went on to note how he concealed these controlled substances for transportation back to Iwakuni, Japan where he introduced them to a military installation.  While the Board is unclear how NCIS became involved with the Applicant in August 2018, his government house at Satsuki Towers was searched and NCIS found his marijuana and anabolic steroids.  Given his wife was an active duty Marine in his unit and unaware of her husband’s drug use, she was designated a protective person via military protective order and the Applicant was moved into the barracks where he required the presence of the Squadron’s Duty Officer in order to visit his wife and young child.  The Applicant was put on legal hold pending court martial and his wife ultimately took permanent change of station orders to McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, while he remained in Iwakuni awaiting the NCIS investigation outcome, court martial, and separation from service.  The Applicant was taken to SPCM on 11 June 2020 and pled guilty to violating UCMJ Articles 92 (2), 107, and 112a (4).  The Applicant was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), reduction in rate to E1, 14 days of confinement, and reprimand.  However, in accordance with his pretrial agreement the Applicant waived his right to an ADSEP board and his 14 days of confinement and adjudged BCD were disapproved.  He was subsequently administratively separated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service for misconduct – drug abuse on 17 September 2020, rather than punitively separated via SPCM.  

While the Board acknowledged the Applicant’s aforementioned depressive and alcohol use disorder, the Board did not find them mitigating for his misconduct.  The Board found the Applicant’s steroid use pre-meditated in nature and outside the confines of self-medication for ongoing mental health or alcohol dependence issues.  The Applicant jeopardized the reputation of the U.S. military presence in Japan by brining illegal substances into the country from the states, risked the career of his Marine wife by putting her under unnecessary scrutiny for her awareness and/or involvement in his significant drug abuse, and intentionally failed to honor the tenets of his service obligations and the core values of the Marine Corps.  In making its determination the Board considered the fact the Applicant received counseling from Fleet and Family Services, but only disclosed it as communication and anger management classes on his separation physical.  At no point did he seek treatment or acknowledge to medical professionals during annual exams or medical visits that he had an alcohol abuse problem or suffered from mental health issues.  The Board was also troubled by the Applicant’s admission he had reported to work under the influence of alcohol on a few occasions, despite the fact his billet required him to performer maintenance on critical aircraft components, and inspect and sign off on maintenance actions performed by other Marines in his squadron.  While the Applicant’s ADSEP PTSD screen was positive the medical officer who conducted it noted the Applicant’s separation should not be delayed because he did not believe it met the criteria for PTSD.  However, he did recommend a further mental health evaluation/treatment prior to separation.  The Board was unable to find medical documentation indicating this happened and the Applicant stated it had not given the COVID environment at the time.  Notwithstanding this fact, ADSEP documentation noted his chain of command – SJA and separation authority, took this into consideration after reviewing the Applicant’s separation history and physical examination (SHPE) and ultimately determined it had no effect on the performance or conduct resulting in his basis for separation.  The Board agreed with this determination.  As previously stated, it is the opinion of the Board that his steroid use was premediated in nature and no nexus could therefore be drawn between his drug abuse and the aforementioned occupational stressors and alcohol dependence.

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 UOTHC 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. 

While the Board appreciated the totality of the Applicant service, the Board found his chain of command had already given mitigation in the form of an UOTHC discharge given he was taken to SPCM and due to receive a BCD.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the Board determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Relief denied.

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

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  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.