ex- LtCol, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220922
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT
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 Service:
Inactive: USN (ROTC)	19870325 - 19871104  	Active:	       19871105 – 19921104 HON
		               R    19921105 – 19950324 HON
			USMCR © 19990103 – 20000527 HON 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20010104	Age:  31
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20211130	Highest Rank:  LtCol
Length of Service:  20 Year(s)   10  Month(s)   27 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  N/A
Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  (3) DMSM MSM (2) AMSF (4) JSCM NMCCM (4) NMCAM JMUA NUC (2) GCM NDSM (2) SWASM (3) ICM (w/ Star) GWOTSM KDSM HSM (4) MOVSM SSDR (11) KLM (Saudi Arabia) KLM (Kuwait) CoA LoA (2) MM 

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

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

NJP:  1

- 20191217:	Article 107 (False official statements) 
	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
	Article 113 (Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle) 6 specifications
	Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer) 
	Awarded: PUNITIVE LETTER OF REPRIMAND   Suspended:  NONE  
CC:  1

- 20190314:	Offense:   a Park “Closure Violation”. 
	Sentence: $150.00 fine.  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
	
	  “SECNAVINST 1920.6C”

The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  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 requests a discharge characterization upgrade to Honorable and narrative upgrade to Sufficient Service for Retirement and contends that numerous substantiate errors make both his NJP and BOI improper and inequitable.
2.	The Applicant contends that service-connected PTSD/TBI negatively clouded his judgement during the traffic accident in February 2019.

Discussion

Date:  20230517		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from November 2006 to September 2007 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 107 (False official statements) 
Article 111 (Leaving the scene of a vehicle accident)
Article 113 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer)

:  The Applicant requests a discharge characterization upgrade to Honorable and narrative upgrade to Sufficient Service for Retirement and contends that numerous substantiate errors make both his NJP and BOI improper and inequitable; and further contends that service-connected PTSD/TBI negatively clouded his judgement during the traffic accident in February 2019.

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 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 – PTSD, TBI (military/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 treatment and service records in addition to personal appearance testimony on 17 May 2023. 
 
The Applicant, a Marine Lieutenant Colonel, was involuntarily retired in 2021 for unacceptable conduct.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant made numerous impropriety implications (not covered here) and stated that service-connected PTSD/TBI negatively clouded his judgement.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been awarded 100% service-connected disability by the VA (50% for Major Depressive Disorder, 30% for chronic migraine headaches). 
 
Brief timeline: 
25 Mar 1987 – Original enlistment 
11 Apr 1992 – Original discharge 
1992 – 2000 – USMCR/Civilian police officer in Hawaii 
25 Nov 2000 – Commissioning 
01 Oct 2017 – Date of rank (LtCol) 
02 Feb 2019 – Inciting incident near GW Parkway 
02 Feb 2019 – Evaluation at WRNMMC ED (L clavicular fracture) 
14 Mar 2019 – Civilian conviction (closure violation only) 
23 May 2019 – Counseling for incident 
24 Jun 2019 – Report of Civilian Conviction and Misconduct 
Late summer – fall 2019 – Finding of significant civilian injury, criminal proceedings initiated 
2 Jul 2019 – TBI assessment 
08 Aug 2019 – Non-contrast MRI of the head (focus of encephalomalacia in R anterior temporal lobe) 
27 Aug 2019 – Bicycle accident (polytrauma) 
04 Sep 2019 – ORIF of R clavicle 
11 Sep 2019 – Neuropsychiatric testing 
1 Nov 2019 – PTA submitted 
17 Dec 2019 – NJP (Art 107, 111, 113 x 6, 133) 
24 Jun 2020 – BOI conducted (Element(s) of misconduct substantiated, involuntary retirement at inferior grade)  
16 Jul 2020 – Letter from Navy Neurologist submitted 
30 Nov 2021 – Retirement date 
 
The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files, testimony, and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions: 
1.	In analyzing the role of PTSD in the Applicant’s misconduct, I do not find sufficient information to substantiate a nexus.  The events for which the Applicant sought VA compensation occurred over twenty years prior to the MVC and no treatment information was available to delineate their severity or impact.  Additionally, per the Applicant’s counsel, PTSD did not play a role in the events of 2 February 2019. 
2.	In analyzing aspects of TBI in this case, I performed a de-novo examination of the aspects of the MVC, including all the information that was not available to the Applicant’s neurologist.  Additionally, I reviewed post-hoc email statements between the Applicant’s counsel and his neurologist.  In combinations, I conclude the following: 
a.	There is evidence in the medical record that alcohol was consumed on the night of the MVC.  
b.	There is evidence from the police report that the Applicant’s blood alcohol content was sufficiently high as to impair his coordination, judgement, memory, and attention. 
c.	Given the lack of information in the Applicant’s medical visits concerning the police report and follow-up comments made by the Applicant’s neurologist, it appears that the neurologist’s opinion did not consider alcohol as a significant factor in this event.  When this information was revealed later, the Applicant’s neurologist stated that alcohol intoxication could have played a central role in the MVC. 
d.	In weighing the possibility of post-concussive confusion (TBI) versus acute alcohol intoxication (or some elements of both), I find that acute alcohol intoxication was more-likely-than-not the inciting factor in the Applicant’s leaving the scene of the MVC.  
    
Based this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his neurologic health. 	

When reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In this case, the Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s nearly 21 years of faithful and exemplary commissioned service as a rotary wing pilot, operational planner, and staff officer.  However, a motor vehicle crash where the Applicant left the scene after causing substantial injuries to two passengers in the other vehicle represented a significant negative aspect of his conduct and outweighed the positive aspects of his service record.  Following the motor vehicle accident, the Applicant agreed to a civil plea agreement for trespass (park closure).  The Applicant was scheduled for a Board of Inquiry (BOI), but when additional information of the seriousness of the injuries to the other passengers was discovered by the Applicant’s command, the BOI was halted and his command moved forward with prosecution.  The Applicant made a Pre-Trial Agreement and accepted Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) for drunk or reckless operation of a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of a vehicle accident, false official statement, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.  At a subsequent BOI, the charges of leaving the scene of a vehicle accident and conduct unbecoming of an officer were substantiated which led to the Applicant’s involuntary retirement and General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge characterization.  The Board considered the Applicant’s contention that numerous substantial errors make both his NJP and BOI improper and inequitable.  Specifically, double jeopardy in that the Applicant’s civil conviction was handled by the District of Columbia (DC) court in accordance with federal law and therefore any disciplinary action (i.e., NJP) by another federal entity (i.e., US Marine Corps) amounts to double jeopardy.  Additionally, the Applicant contends that since the drunk/reckless driving charge was unsubstantiated during the BOI, the charge of leaving the scene (presumably to avoid arrest for drunk driving) also should not have been substantiated by the BOI.  Lastly, the Applicant contends that the BOI inappropriately considered his refusal to testify under oath and address a charge as proof that he in fact committed the offense.  

The Board recognizes the presumption of regularity in governmental affairs in that the Separation Authority and multiple Staff Judge Advocate reviews of the discharge package was proper and afforded the Applicant all of his administrative rights pursuant to the separation process.  The Board held that the civil process did not preclude the Applicant’s command from conducting an investigation and taking appropriate disciplinary actions.  Furthermore, the Board found that the Applicant had legal counsel and accepted NJP, therefore the NJP findings would provide substantial evidence to support the BOI findings (specifically, wrongfully leaving the scene of an accident).  Moreover, the Board applied the concept of Res Ipsa Loquitur “the thing speaks for itself” in that the Applicant was negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle where there was sufficient evidence the Applicant injured two people.  As a result, the Board held the Applicant’s NJP and BOI were proper and equitable.  

Next, the Board considered whether the charge of leaving the scene of a vehicle accident which was substantiated at the Applicant’s BOI was wrongful.  The Applicant contends that TBI and other injuries suffered during the accident impaired his judgment, caused confusion, and was the underlying reason he left the scene of the accident.   Here, the Board carefully reviewed evidence on the role that PTSD and TBI factored in the Applicant’s misconduct.  After an exhaustive review of the Applicant’s medical and service records, the Board found insufficient information to substantiate a nexus with PTSD.  With regards to the role that TBI factored into the misconduct, the Board found evidence from the police report that the Applicant’s blood alcohol content was sufficiently high as to impair his coordination, judgement, memory, and attention.  Additionally, based upon follow-up comments made by the Applicant’s neurologist, it appears that the neurologist’s initial opinion did not consider alcohol as a significant factor in this event.  When this information was revealed, the Applicant’s neurologist stated that alcohol intoxication could have played a central role in the motor vehicle crash.  The Board weighed the possibility that post-concussive confusion (TBI) or acute alcohol intoxication (or some elements of both), factored into the misconduct (leaving the scene of an accident) and determined that acute alcohol intoxication was more-likely-than-not the inciting factor in the Applicant’s leaving the scene of the accident.  Therefore, the Board determined that the Applicant’s leaving the scene of the accident was wrongful.

The Board also accounted for the Applicant’s post-service conduct to include continued gainful employment as a federal civil servant and being a faithful husband and father.  These efforts along with the Applicant’s accountability and remorse for the misconduct committed while on active duty demonstrate the values and resilience the service seeks of its veterans.  In consideration for all these factors, and the misconduct, the Board determined that the misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career, which could not be mitigated by his mental health or TBI, and his separation processing was proper and equitable.  Consequently, the Board found the assigned characterization of service General (Under Honorable Conditions) is appropriate.  In summary, the Board recognized the Applicant’s exemplary performance both prior to the incident and exemplary performance post-service, but did not find the principles of propriety, equity, or clemency, even with liberal consideration, could exonerate his documented actions that led to a vehicle accident involving both property damage and personal injury.

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 service members, 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 service members 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  UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of SNC1, and the reentry code shall  N/A.  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.