ex- BMSR 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20221006
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 20040416 - 20040428               	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20040429	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20061117	Highest Rank/Rate:  BMSN
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  17  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT: 66
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance:  3.3 (3)        Behavior:  3.3 (3)	OTA:  3.22

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM NAVY "E" SSDR GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   Retention Warning Counseling: 

NJP:  3

- 20061011:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward WO, NCO or PO)
	Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR  Suspended:  RIR Vacated 20061027

- 20061027:	Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer)   
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Awarded: CBW  Suspended:  NONE

- 20061114:	Article 134 (General article) 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Drunkenness-incapacitation for the performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug
	Specification 2: Communicating a threat
	Awarded: CBW RIR  Suspended:  NONE

NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Conducted (date):	20151005
NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Docket Number:	ND15-00746
NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing 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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 based on equity, his proper reason for separation should be Convenience of the Government – Physical or Mental Conditions.
2.	The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because of his inability to meet normal military standards due to a mental condition, alcohol/substance dependency, and family/personal problems which limited the Applicant’s capability to serve. 
3.	The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the command was arbitrary and capricious by the use of privileged communication for the reason of discharge and characterization of service amounted to clear abuse of authority and further limited the Applicant’s capability to serve.  
4.	The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the command was arbitrary and capricious by failure to screen/offer treatment for substance dependency amounted to clear abuse of authority and further limited the Applicant’s capability to serve.
5.	The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the Applicant’s service history, when viewed in light of his limited capability to serve, was overall honorable.

Discussion

Date:  20221215		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.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW: 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.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

NJP:  3

- 20061011:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward WO, NCO or PO)
	Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR  Suspended:  RIR Vacated 20061027

- 20061027:	Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer)   
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Awarded: CBW  Suspended:  NONE

- 20061114:	Article 134 (General article) 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Drunkenness-incapacitation for the performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug
	Specification 2: Communicating a threat
	Awarded: CBW RIR  Suspended:  NONE

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends that based on equity, his proper reason for separation should be Convenience of the Government – Physical or Mental Conditions.  

Per the Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for discharge to a physical disability.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change and can be petitioned for a determination of whether the medical condition or underlying diagnosis 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.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr. However the BCNR already applied liberal consideration upgraded the Applicant’s characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) and the Board concluded further relief was not warranted.

Issue 2:  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because of his inability to meet normal military standards due to a mental condition, alcohol/substance dependency, and family/personal problems which limited the Applicant’s capability to serve.  

The Applicant provided statements from himself and his father documenting substantial pre-service alcohol and drug abuse as well as outpatient and inpatient drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  In the Applicant’s statement, he admits to pre-service abuse of over the counter medicines, marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy.  The Applicant provides post-service medical notes from Bay Pines VA Healthcare System dated 18 March 2011that document a diagnosis for psychosis, schizoaffective disorder, and polysubstance abuse.   Neither in his application for military service nor during his entrance physical did the Applicant disclose any prior drug use, drug or alcohol dependence, or drug or alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  He did disclose civil charges for a DUI, petty theft and false identification card.  Around the time of the third NJP, the Applicant reported suicidal ideations and was sent to Tripler Army Medical Center for treatment.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  The Behavioral Health Evaluation completed on 10 November 2006 notes that he was responsible for his actions.  The notes from the mental health appointment at Tripler on 13 November 2006 with a different provider state that the patient does not manifest any significant psychopathology and should be held accountable for his actions.  Although the Applicant may feel that the personal problems, alcohol dependency and a diagnosis for schizoaffective disorder received over four years after the date of discharge were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issue 3:  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the command was arbitrary and capricious by the use of privileged communication for the reason of discharge and characterization of service amounted to clear abuse of authority and further limited the Applicant’s capability to serve.  

The Applicant contends that Article 134 charges for communicating a threat against the Senior Chief who reported him unfit for duty was a violation of patient doctor confidentiality and an abuse of privileged communications because the command found out about the threat when a Chief at his command wrongfully reviewed medicals records intended for the ship’s corpsman.  However in the Applicant’s letter dated 27 November 2006, the Applicant stated that the doctor at Pearl Harbor told him that he had to disclose the threat because he had a “duty to warn” and that he would advise the command to remove the service member from the ship.  The Applicant was prescribed medication for insomnia and anger.  The Behavioral Health Evaluation completed on 10 November 2006 notes that he was mentally responsible for his actions and documented that he was at low risk of hurting himself and others.  He was also marked as potentially dangerous if he did not keep follow up appointments.  Additionally, the Applicant’s counsel argues that the Article 134 charges were added unjustly to allow the command to separate the Applicant under Commission of a Serious Offense because they lacked a NAV1073/613 counseling subsequent to his previous NJP that would allow for a discharge under Pattern of Misconduct.  However, the Applicant’s Command could have discharged the Applicant following the second NJP under Pattern of Misconduct without any counseling; instead they retained the member and gave him another opportunity to correct his deficiencies.  The evidence of record does not indicate that the Command misused privileged communications or that the Article 134 charges were unwarranted or maliciously added to effect a separation.   Relief denied.

Issue 4:  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the command was arbitrary and capricious by failure to screen/offer treatment for substance dependency amounted to clear abuse of authority and further limited the Applicant’s capability to serve.  

As noted above, the Applicant did not disclose any alcohol or drug dependency or his rehabilitation treatment before entering the service in April 2004.  The day he reported to the USS REUBEN JAMES (FFG 57), the Applicant signed several generic NAVPERS 1070/613 administrative remarks forms.  One of the forms explained the ship’s alcohol policy under Hawaii state law.  This was not counseling resulting from alcohol related misconduct.  There is no record of any alcohol or drug incidents until the Applicant’s third NJP in November 2006.  Following that incident, he disclosed to medical personnel that he had a few beers the night before.  He did not disclose a history of alcohol abuse.  The record does not indicate whether he was sent to the command Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA) or Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP) for screening or treatment.  The NDRB did not discern evidence that the Command’s actions were arbitrary or capricious.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the Applicant’s service history, when viewed in light of his limited capability to serve, was overall honorable.  

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 may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition did not exist 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 – Adjustment Disorder (military); 
Schizoaffective Disorder (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	No	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	No	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, service record, and all supporting documents.

The Applicant contends undiagnosed mental health conditions (alcohol use disorder and schizoaffective disorders) mitigate his in-service misconduct.

29 Apr 2004 – Enlistment
Oct 2005 – Jan 2006 – OIF/OEF deployment
11 Oct 2006 – NJP (Art. 91)
27 Oct 2006 – NJP (Arts 90 & 92)
14 Nov 2006 – NJP (Art 134, 2 specifications)
17 Nov 2006 – Discharge/OTH-Serious Offense

POST SEPARATION:
12 March 2008: NDRB Documentary Review held the discharge was proper.
17 Mar 2011 [over 4 years post discharge]– Admission for psychosis.
22 Mar 2011 [3 years post separation]:  VA summary sheet noting a Service Connection for SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER with an original disability rating of 50% and 100% effective 11 Aug 2020 without elaboration 07 Dec 2015:  NDRB found no change was warranted at 5 Oct 2015 Personal Appearance Hearing citing the finding by mental health professionals at the time of his NJP that he be held responsible.
17 May 2021:  BCNR Majority findings included “After liberally considering the effect of his mental health condition at the time, the Board determined it was in the interests of justice to grant him an upgrade to his characterization of service to General under Honorable conditions.
In making this finding, the Board considered Petitioner's honorable service from the commencement of his active duty service until approximately October 2006…The Board concluded Petitioner's separation for commission of a serious offense was consistent with his history of three non-judicial punishments and the seriousness of his misconduct. Additionally, despite evidence that his mental health condition contributed to his misconduct, the Board found no evidence that
Petitioner was not mentally responsible for the misconduct that formed the basis for his discharge from the Navy.”  The Minority recommendation was to “Deny relief.”

It is, additionally, noted in a military treatment record of a psychology session dated 13 Nov 2006 (post-second NJP), the Applicant described general frustration with his time in the Navy including being away from his wife and daughter.  The Applicant also endorsed poor sleep and anger issues.  In this session, the psychiatrist noted no disturbances in thought processes or content or indications of dysperceptions.  While not conclusively ruling out the trappings of schizoaffective disorder (especially the possibility of what may have represented early or prodromal symptoms), the overall session tends to lend more to an adjustment disorder.  Five years later, the Applicant was admitted to the VA with symptoms of frank psychosis and diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

In reviewing the misconduct and the diagnoses given, the possibility of mental health playing a role in the Applicant’s misconduct cannot be ruled out.  However, as noted above, the BCNR already applied liberal consideration and concluded further relief was not warranted.  Nor does the current review find further upgrade to be fully warranted. 	

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  Though the Applicant may feel that his schizoaffective disorder and alcohol dependency were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record reflects a pattern of willful misconduct.  The mental health professionals who assessed his condition at the time of the final NJP recommended that he should be held accountable for his actions.  Additionally, the medical diagnosis for schizoaffective disorder that was received over four years after his discharge did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Applicant’s mental health issues were a contributing factor or excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions at the time.  The NDRB determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and that an upgrade was not warranted.  Relief denied.

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

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) with a corresponding separation code of JKQ, 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.