ex-Cpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20230220
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  ARNG 20021217 - 20041114 HON	Active:   20041116 - 20071021  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20071022	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years  22 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20131107	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   16 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  59 
Deployment/Operation:    

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Proficiency:  4.1 (2)   Conduct:  4.0 (2)
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  CAR NUC(5) GCM(2) NDSM ACM ICM(2) GWOTSM OVSM SSDR(2) OSR(2) NATO CoC CoA(6) LoA(2) MM NMCPI  

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:  

NJP:  

- 20120627:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation), 5 specifications  
	Awarded:   RIR  Suspended:   

- 20121019:	Article 90 (Assaulting, willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer), 2 specifications 
	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer)
	Article 107 (False official statements)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  4

- 20080725:	For being dropped from MAGTF Counterintelligence/HUMINT Course for academic failures and inability to grasp the course content.  

- 20120510:	For violation of article 92, derelict in the performance of duties.  Specifically, on the evening of 20120425 and morning of 20120426 you were derelict in your duties as a Sergeant of Marines, fraternizing by coordinating an evening of one-on-one drinking with a LCpl.  

- 20120808:	For violation of article 92, failure to obey a lawful order on multiple occasions.  At approximately 2230 on 20120425, you left your family home in order to spend time with female LCpl who is not your wife.  The Commanding Officer issued written and verbal orders on 20120510 directing that you have no contact with the female LCpl outside of your official duties and only while in the company of others.  On multiple occasions, the first known being 20120514, you knowingly and willfully continued to have non-duty related contact with the female LCpl.  Additional known violations include spending time with her in your family home on the evening of 20120521, 20120523, and 20120524 while your wife was hospitalized due to complication with her pregnancy.  Additionally, you and female LCpl are known to have spent the night of 20120526 together in a hotel room.

- 20121024:	For violation of article 90, willfully disobeying the Military Protective Order on 20120914.  For violation of article 90, willfully disobeying order received at 1100 and 1315 on 20120913 to go to his work section and not going to the work section until about 1400.  For violation of article 91, treating superior non-commissioned officer with contempt, by lying to him concerning a violation of Military Protective Order.  Even when confronted with a witness statement, you continued to lie a second time.  Violation of article 107, knowingly make a false official statement to senior non-commissioned officer concerning his whereabouts on 20120914.  When questioned, you continued to lie about your whereabouts.  On 20120919 at approximately 1330, the command was informed by Sgt, US Army, that the accused was seen entering his spouse’s apartment.  The command also received forwarded texts from the accused wife admitting to lying on 20120920.  These actions resulted in NJP on 20121019.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20140710
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  MD14-00336
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Conducted (date):  20190719
NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Docket Number:  MD18-00014
NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

   “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)”
	   “MISCONDUCT”

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

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 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 contends that he should have been medically retired.
2.	The Applicant contends that the Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) which formed the basis for the separation was a reprisal for the Applicant instigating an Inspector General (IG) investigation and congressional inquiry.
3.	The Applicant contends that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not given due weight at the Administrative Separation Board (ASB).
Discussion

Date:  20230306		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 NDRB 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 NDRB 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.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

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 September 2006 to March 2007 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM  and from August 2010 to February 2011 in support of Operation ENDURING 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 90 (Assaulting, willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) 
Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer)
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 107 (False official statements)

:  The Applicant contends that he should have been medically retired.

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.  However, upon a review of the available records, the Applicant should consider petitioning BCNR for a determination of whether the medical condition(s) or underlying diagnose(s) interfered significantly with the applicant’s ability to carry out the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.  The Applicant (using DD Form 149) may file the petition with BCNR, at 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm.

Per regulations, the initiation and submission of medical boards are at the discretion of the individual physician.  There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority.  Further, the evidence of record does not indicate that proper authority erred by not initiating a medical board for the Applicant.  Therefore, the NDRB found this issue to be without merit.

:  The Applicant contends that the NJP which formed the basis for the separation was a reprisal for the Applicant instigating an IG investigation and congressional inquiry.

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.  

The Applicant states he was treated unfairly by his command and that his separation was a reprisal for the Applicant instigating an IG investigation and congressional inquiry.  Since the government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs, the Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command treated him unfairly.  Based on the totality of the record, the NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharges given others in similar circumstances.  Therefore, the NDRB found this issue to be without merit.

:  The Applicant contends that PTSD was not given due weight at the ASB.

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the NDRB 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 NDRB found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes	
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 treatment and service records, VA records, and applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant contends his mental health condition(s) mitigates the misconduct.

While in Service, the applicant was diagnosed and treated for (1) adjustment disorder; (2) adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct; (3) adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features; (4) alcohol abuse; (5) military combat stress disorder; and (6) post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant was subsequently assigned a 70% VA Service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Record review suggests his mental health condition(s) does mitigate the misconduct.	

When reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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 NDRB found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  In making its determination, the NDRB considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct including his enlistment Proficiency and Conduct marks of 4.1 and 4.0, his fifteen fitness reports as a sergeant, and combat tours to both Iraq and Afghanistan; his PTSD/mental health diagnosis and treatment prior to discharge; the nexus between his misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  The Applicant served just over six years of his 5-year, 1-month reenlistment which he had extended for 22 months, following a prior period of honorable service, and was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon, five Navy Unit Commendations, two Good Conduct Medals, the NATO Medal, an Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one battle star, an Iraq Campaign Medal with two battle stars, a Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons, two Overseas Service Ribbons, a Certificate of Commendation, six Certificates of Appreciation, two Letters of Appreciation, a Meritorious Mast, and qualification as a Navy-Marine Corps Parachutist.

The Board noted that although the Applicant exhibited evidence of PTSD after his return from Iraq in 2007 and 2008 and again after his Afghanistan deployment in 2011, he did not receive a diagnosis or treatment for PTSD until December 2012 and additional mental health conditions in January, February, and March 2013, all after his misconduct.  The Applicant’s June 2013 ASB and Battalion Commanding Officer did consider his combat service and PTSD when recommending a General discharge over the originally recommended Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, but likely did not consider the full extent of his mental health condition, which had yet to be fully diagnosed nor treated, as accomplished post-service by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  His severe mental health condition compromised his ability to maintain standards.  While PTSD did not excuse his behavior, the NDRB found it did mitigate the misconduct further than could be considered by the ASB and separation authority.  Consequently, the NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  Consequently, the NDRB found a change in characterization of service was appropriate.  Relief granted.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  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.