ex- IT3, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20211110
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-152 [ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE] 

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:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20090727	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20120503	Highest Rank/Rate:  IT3
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  02  Month(s)  27  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  76
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.0 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.5 (2)   OTA: 3.11 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Pistol  JMUA NDSM GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CC:     NJP:  NONE

CIVIL ARREST:  1

- 20120108:	Operating a vehicle with a BAC of .08 percent or higher in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  No charges filed.

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20111202:	Details not found in record (Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20120413)

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20130801
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND13-0007
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1600.19F), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, Paragraph 6209, ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his characterization of service and narrative reason for separation were improper and inequitable because the Navy did not follow its own procedures for addressing alcohol dependency and that his mental health issues mitigated his alcohol related incidents.  

Discussion

Date:  20221205		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.

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.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant’s record of service included no retention warning counseling and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.

:  The Applicant contends that his characterization of service and narrative reason for separation were improper and inequitable because the Navy did not follow its own procedures for addressing alcohol dependency and that his mental health issues mitigated his alcohol related incidents.

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

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

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

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that mitigated the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience 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 PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?	Yes, chronic ADHD enjoys a robust comorbidity with both substance use disorder and the affective disorder spectrum (especially Depression and Bipolar II illness); and the Applicant’s testimony clearly indicates an abiding, profoundly depressing sense of failure over his dismissal from EOD training to an extent that would have likely been compatible with at least a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood which continues to haunt him to this day.  The diagnosis of an Anxiety Disorder, per se, does not appear in the submitted VA record until over a decade post discharge.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, likely in the form of an adjustment disorder when faced with the administrative dismissal from EOD training in response to, fortunately, relatively minor but behaviorally significant ETOH related offenses.	
	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:	APPLICATION included the basic contention qualifying mental health conditions should be considered as qualifying under “Kurta.”

CHRONOLOGY includes:

27 Jul 2009:  Enlistment @ 19 yo/Education Level 12/AFQT 76.

04 Aug 2010 – 28 Feb 2011 FITREP:  ITSN; 3.50/Early Promote (1 in field of 2); “solid performer”

09 Apr 2011:  “ETOH incident”

02 May – 17 Jun 2011:  Completed SARP Outpatient Treatment

16 Jul 2011 – 03 May 12:  IT3:  2.71/SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS

08 Jan 2012:  2nd ETOH incident per “Comments of the Commanding Officer” per “Comments of the Commanding Officer”?

2012:
CIVIL ARREST:  1
   - 20120108:  Charges:  Operating a vehicle with a BAC of .08 percent or higher in the state of Massachusetts.

01 Mar 2012:  Completed Intensive Outpatient Treatment.

02 Apr 2012:  Psychology Clinic LCSW eval. 
   Dx ADHD, PREDOMINANTLY INATTENTIVE TYPE and OBSESSIVE TRAITS
   GAF = 71-80 (Slight impairment in work or school with occasional symptoms that are expected reactions to psychological stressors)
   “…sober for at least 2 months.  He is staying active and reading often…losing small items…ADHD onset 1 year ago…”

11 & 16 Apr 2012:  TAMC PSYCHIATRY evaluation:
   “Pt states that he has a life-long history of hyperactivity and difficulty concentrating…not diagnosed in childhood…warranting a trial of stimulant…afraid that his command is going to ‘kick me out of the Navy any day now for the DUI and he wants to stay in……on shift word [sic] which may complicate initiation of stimulant…”
Current GAF 65
Will start CONCERTA [METHYLPHENIDATE] Rx

03 May 2012:  Discharge Date:  CHARACTER GUHC after a 2 yr, 9 month 7 day enlistment.  Highest rank IT3
   -Eval marks:  3.0x2 Performance; 2.5x2 Behavior

01 Aug 2013:  PROPER AS ISSUED.
NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20130801
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND13-0007
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

 MEDICAL COMMENT:  ADHD shares a 50% comorbidity with ETOH abuse spectrum disorders and, hence, a nexus can be drawn which would warrant liberal consideration of mitigation short of outright exculpation.  In the instant case, further evidence of continued ETOH related incidents post SARP intervention and institution of treatment with stimulants for ADHD suggests Liberal Consideration has, possibly already arguably, been functionally applied by the command decision to limit the Applicant to a GUHC characterization.  The post discharge record is largely limited to a 22 September 2022 (over a decade post discharge) Massachusetts VA Rating Decision noting the “currently 50 percent disabling [rating for an ANXIETY DISORDER]…to 70 percent…” without corroborating Compensation & Pension elaboration or clinical evaluations and treatment history over time without which a firm conclusion cannot be easily drawn.  However, verbal testimony suggests major accomplishments in education (currently in a PhD program) and socially (married and the couple has a young son) and maintaining occupational activity. 

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.  The Applicant was an extremely high performing sailor was an intense work schedule.  The basis for The Applicant’s discharge was an alcohol treatment failure, however, the Applicant attended and successfully complete outpatient SARP twice.  Each assignment for outpatient SARP treatment came after an alcohol related incident (ARI).  The first incident occurred on April 9, 2011.  The Applicant, who was over 21 years old, joined three of his comrades and went to a bar for drinks. While the four were returning in a car, an argument broke out between the Applicant and one of the other occupants of the vehicle.  When they arrived back at their billeting and debarked, the Applicant was violently assaulted by the fellow service member he had argued with and required treatment at the base hospital emergency room for his injuries.  The Applicant declined to bring formal charges against his assailant and at no time was the Applicant accused of any wrongdoing or charged with any offense under the UCMJ.  The second incident involving alcohol occurred in January 2012 when the Applicant was on leave.  He drove to Hanscom AFB to meet an acquaintance.  He was suspected of being intoxicated by personnel manning the gate, who summoned the Massachusetts State Police. The Applicant tested right at the legal limit on the breathalyzer and was arrested, but not charged with any offense.  Following the second ARI the Applicant was again referred to outpatient SARP, not inpatient as would normally be expected.  In the course of his treatment he saw two Navy mental health providers, a licensed social worker and a psychiatrist.  They determined that the Applicant has "ADHD, combined type" and "ADHD, predominantly inattentive type" and prescribed the drug Concerta.  In a follow up visit to the psychiatrist, the Applicant stated that he as well as co-workers and friends noted that he was doing better with treatment and the prescription and no longer self-medicating with alcohol.  Subsequent post-service, the Veterans Affairs Department has awarded the Applicant a service connected disability of 70%.  

The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his alcohol use and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  The Applicant had no misconduct in his record.  His first ARI did not involve any allegations of impropriety on his part.  His second did, but did not rise to the level of criminal charges in the eyes of the civil authorities nor his command.  The reason for the applicant’s administrative separation and characterization of service was technically inaccurate.  The Applicant did not fail alcohol rehabilitation training.  At the time of his separation, the Applicant was in treatment for his mental health conditions and successfully dealing with the issues that caused him to self-medicate with alcohol.  If the command felt that that based on the second ARI that the Applicant needed additional help with alcohol it should have pursued the more comprehensive in-patient treatment program.  Although the Applicant’s mental health condition may have warranted separation for a condition not a disability, that would not bring with it a service characterization below Honorable.  Instead, the command did not properly recognized his diagnosed mental health condition as a mitigating factor and assigned him a service characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Since leaving the Navy, the Applicant has earned his bachelor’s degree as a counselor, has married and is raising a family, and is pursuing his PhD with the intent of being a VA counselor.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service and narrative reason for separation were appropriate.  

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 the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF, 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.  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.