ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20220407
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6419 [IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:    19960829 - 20040525 HON	Active:      20050729 - 20120918 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20120919	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20160412	Highest Rank/Rate:  GySgt
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  23  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  80
Deployment/Operation:  
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (2) Pistol  NMCAM NUC (2) GCM (3) SMCRM (2) NDSM ICM (w/3 Stars) GWOTEM (Iraq) GWOTSM SSDR (4) MCCI AFRM (w/“M” Device) CoC (Unit Award) CoC (Individual Award) (3) CoA MM (3)

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20150605:	Article 87 (Missing movement) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
	Article 134 (General article) x2
	Awarded:  FOP (2 months) RESTR (60 days)
	Suspended:  FOP (1 month) RESTR (15 days)

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20150605:	For failure of your professional duties as Vehicle Commander, Master Gunner, and Platoon, resulting in your relief for cause. 

- 20150612:	For violation of articles 87, 91 and 134 x2 resulting in NJP.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16), effective 26 November 2013.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities and qualify for VA benefits.
2.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
3.	The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
4.	The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable and too harsh.
5.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20220718		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 August, 2004 to February, 2005, March to October, 2007, and from September, 2008 to April, 2009 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 87 (Missing movement)
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities and qualify for VA benefits.

The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities or facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

However, upon administrative review the Board found the Applicant had a period of continuous honorable active service.  Consequently, presentation to the VA of this period of “Continuous Honorable Service,” is likely to avail the Applicant of most or all VA benefits.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.

:  The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

The DRB 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.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question.  Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration.  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 Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

The Applicant was administratively separated; not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  While the NDRB acknowledges and appreciates the totality of the Applicant’s service to his country and the Corps, this issue alone does not warrant an upgrade given the seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct.

4:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable and too harsh.

The record shows the Applicant was not taken to court-martial, but was administratively separated (ADSEP) from the Marine Corps after requesting separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT).  Per regulations, to attain approval for a SILT request, servicemembers must have been afforded the opportunity to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.  They must also fully understand the elements of the offense(s) for which they were charged, and they must admit their guilt.  They further certify a complete understanding of the negative consequences of their actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC), which might deprive them of virtually all veterans benefits based upon their current enlistment.  Documentation indicated that the Applicant retained military and civil counsel over the course of his ADSEP proceedings, and was aware of the significance of his discharge and the weight of an UOTHC discharge.  Armed with this knowledge, the Applicant elected not to have his case heard at court-martial.

5:  The Applicant contends his PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

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 not 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 – Alcohol Use Disorder, PTSD, MDD, unspecified anxiety disorder (military); PTSD, MDD (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes	
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 military and VA treatment records.

The Applicant contends (in part) his PTSD mitigates his in-service misconduct

2002 – first enlistment
2004-2005 – 1st Iraq deployment
2007 – 2nd Iraq deployment
2009 – 3rd Iraq deployment
April-May 2015 – Level III SARP Treatment
05 Jun 2015 – relief for cause
12 Jun 2015 – NJP (Arts 87, 92, 134x2)
03 Dec 2015 – Self-admission to MHLB BH Unit (5150/5250)
10-14 Dec 2015 – Transfer/Inpatient NMCSD Psychiatry Ward
14 Dec 2015 – Confined to brig
29 Jan 2016 – PEB Submitted
11 Mar 2016 – SILT signed
12 Apr 2016 – Discharge

The Applicant presents a very complex case.  Briefly, the Applicant had well-established diagnoses of PTSD and severe alcohol use disorder (among others), both of which played a role in the events leading to the Applicant’s separation from the Marine Corps.  Mental Health professionals at Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton sought to medically retire the Applicant, through the PEB process.  These efforts were superseded by the legal processing related to the Applicant’s incident of homicidal ideation, hospitalization, and confinement.

Analysis of the Applicant’s copious medical records, personnel files, and submitted materials supports the following conclusions:

1.	Neither PTSD nor severe alcohol use disorder explain the events of 3 December 2015.  Per detailed psychological testing and evaluation, the Applicant had a clear sensorium and was capable of making rational, goal-directed decisions.
2.	PTSD and severe alcohol use disorder likely played a significant role in creating the extreme tension between the command and the Applicant.
3.	Despite making homicidal ideations against his chain of command, the Applicant opted to seek medical attention in order to find relief.
4.	Without the 3 December incident, the Applicant likely would have been medically retired for a host of mental and physical health issues.

I find a credible, though indirect, nexus between the Applicant’s PTSD and the events that caused his separation.	

While the Board’s Medical Officer found creditable evidence of PTSD related to multiple combat deployments to Iraqi over the entirety of his service, the Board found the Applicant’s misconduct, given his time in service and grade, significant and premeditated.  Documentation indicated the Applicant missed a movement to the National Training Center, became intoxicated – as evidenced by a BAC test while under strict alcohol limits during training, and was under the influence of alcohol during the performance of his duties.  He received NJP for this misconduct. Six months later, NCIS documentation noted that the Applicant wanted to stab his battalion commander with a knife after a conversation related to a social media post, but did not because of the presence of his companion dog.  Documentation also notes that he went home to get a box of shotgun shells in order to shoot his sergeant major and commanding officer.  While at his house, his wife found him loading his shotgun and he noted to her he intended to kill members of his command.  She ultimately talked him into receiving medical care, diffusing the situation.  Given the seriousness of his threats, NCIS became involved and conducted an investigation that ultimately led to his SILT.  There was no indication to the Board that his mental health condition would have precluded him from understanding the nature of his acts at the time.

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 totality of the Applicant’s misconduct reflected a gross lack of judgement and was in contrast to the Marine Corps’ core values.  The Board was incapable of identifying any level of mitigation for his actions and decisions that would be supported by his reported condition.  Though the Applicant may feel that a Mental Health Diagnosis was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflected willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Mental Health Diagnosis was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions.  After a thorough review, the NDRB determined that a Mental Health Diagnosis, stemming from PTSD, did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  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  IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of kfs1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  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.