ex-HM2, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20230417
Characterization of Service Received:    
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   I N LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:    MILPERSMAN 1910-106 [IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to:  COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	            	Active:	 20101006 - 20130828  
				 20130829 - 20161115  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20161116	Age at Enlistment:  24
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20180503	Highest Rank/Rate:  HM2
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   17 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  59
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.5 (4)   Behavior/Conduct:  2.2 (4)   OTA:  2.60 
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (3) Pistol  ACM ACM CAR GWOTEM GWOTSM GCM (2) KDSM MOVM NDSM NUC NMCAM SSDR (2) NATO

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

NJP:    SCM:    SPCM:    CC:  

CIVIL ARREST:  

- 20171130:	Charges:  State of North Carolina, Onslow County.  Felony Insurance Fraud, Felony Attempt to Obtain Property under False Pretense, and Misdermeanor False Report to Police Station.

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20171212:	For inappropriate contact with female students in violation of MCES Order 1609.1.

- 20180206:	For failure to obey a lawful order by attempting to borrow a privately owned vehicle and conversing with a visitor outside of authorized visiting times while on pretrial restriction.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20200701
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  ND19-01555
NDRB Documentary Review 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:

		    “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE
FROM 20101006 UNTIL 20161115”
		Block 27, Reentry Code, should state:  “RE-4”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command 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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 11, effective 31 May 2005 until 10 November 2021, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board). Para. 222(g), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge is improper because his command unfairly used and considered pending collateral allegations during separation proceedings and in the determination of his characterization of service.
2.	The Applicant contends his command failed to consider his overall service during separation proceedings and his in-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.
3.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.
4.	The Applicant contends his discharge is improper and inequitable because his command did not give sufficient consideration to his Mental Health during this period of service and in the conduct of separation proceedings.
Discussion

Date:  20230804		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 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.  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 October 2012 to June 2013 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:

 Civil Arrest

:  The Applicant contends his discharge is improper because his command unfairly used and considered pending collateral allegations during separation proceedings and in the determination of his characterization of service.  

On 28 March 2018, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT).  In the request, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with counsel, acknowledged that he fully understood the elements of the offenses for which he was charged, and was guilty of those offenses.  He certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions which might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment.

During this period of service, the Applicant’s misconduct, conduct writ large, and separation proceedings are summarized below:

In October 2017, a command investigation concluded the Applicant failed to maintain appropriate conduct with student personnel which included both officer and enlisted ranks.  The Investigating Officer (IO) recommended appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary action and also recommended that he be evaluated by Mental Health to make a determination on his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  Following this investigation, the Applicant was relieved of duties due to loss of confidence, trust, and inability to perform duty around student personnel. 

On 17 November 2017, the Applicant was arrested for insurance fraud, attempt to obtain property under false pretenses, and providing a false report to police.  Circumstances surrounding these offense stem from the Applicant’s alleged false report that MS-13 gang members kidnapped him at gunpoint, forced him to sink his boat while shooting at him, and then the gang members instructed him to dismantle his boat trailer and place it in a church parking lot.  Information contained in the record further indicated he allegedly concocted this story in an attempt to conspire with his wife and with full intent to deceive and commit insurance fraud for their boat. 

On 12 December 2017, the Applicant received a Retention Warning Counseling for inappropriate contact with a female student.

On 14 December 2017, the Applicant was notified of ADSEP processing by reason of Misconduct (Commission of a Serious) [Four Specifications] and the least favorable characterization of service that he may receive would be Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC).  When advised of this notification, the Applicant exercised his rights to consult with counsel, request an ADSEP Board, and submit a letter for the Separation Authority’s consideration. 

On 24 January 2018, the Applicant was placed into pre-trial confinement for allegations that he violated Article 89, 92 (Two Specifications), and 121.  Circumstances surrounding the Article 89 violation involved disrespect to a superior commissioned officer.  Circumstances for the Article 92 violations were not found in the record.  The Article 121 violation involved his theft of a bicycle on Camp Lejeune. 

On 30 January 2018, the Applicant reported that he was sexually assaulted and he was subsequently transported to the Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital for treatment.  The Applicant remained in the hospital and received psychiatric care for several days.  The Applicant filed an Unrestricted Report for this sexual assault to which he was assigned Victims Legal Counsel and a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation was initiated.  In documentation reviewed by the NDRB, the Applicant stated that he was sexually assaulted by two males in his barracks room; these two individuals further threatened him and his family; and he indicated these two individuals may be affiliated with the MS-13 gang members who kidnapped him.  The NDRB found insufficient evidence contained in the Applicant’s service or medical records that indicated this sexual assault was substantiated. 

On 26 February 2018, the following charges were preferred to a Special Court Martial (SPCM):  Article 80 in that he broke restriction; Article 91 in that he disobeyed a Staff NCO (SNCO); Article 92 in that he was derelict of his duties and failed to maintain appropriate standard of conduct between students and permanent personnel between July 2017 and October 2017; and Article 121 (Two Specifications) in that he stole a bicycle from a SNCO of 16 August 2017 and another bicycle from a SNCO on 23 January 2018.  

On 28 March 2018, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT).  In this request for discharge, the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of those offenses.  He certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment.  Ultimately, the NDRB found that his Command’s acceptance of his SILT request was favorable as he was pending SPCM charges and in this forum, he was potentially contending with a Bad Conduct discharge, confinement, and additional punishment.  In full review of this issue to include the documentation presented within this petition and his record, the NDRB found insufficient evidence that his command unfairly used and/or considered his history of documented and alleged misconduct while they preferred charges to a SPCM and as they proceeded with administrative separation processing.  Relief denied on this issue.

Issue 2: The Applicant contends his command failed to consider his overall service during separation proceedings and his in-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.

In the evidence of record, the Applicant’s period of service that is under review is from November 2016 to May 2018.  During this period, the Applicant completed one year and five months of his three year service obligation.  The Applicant also has previous periods of Honorable service from 2010 to 2016.  His total time in service is seven years and six months.

During the Applicant’s previous periods of Honorable service, the NDRB noted that he attained average to above average evaluations; deployed in support of combat operations in Afghanistan; completed a Unit Deployment Program (UDP) tour to the Asia Pacific; and was awarded two Good Conduct Medals, one Military Outstanding Volunteer Medal, one Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, one Navy and Marine Corps Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, and numerous Letters and Certificates of Appreciation or Commendation.  Regarding the Applicant’s combat deployment, he was first assigned to a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and from his statement, he transitioned from the PRT to assume a traditional field corpsman role in support of Special Operations Forces.  During this deployment, the Applicant stated he was combat meritoriously promoted to HM3.  In regards to the Applicant’s Navy and Marine Corps Medal, the Applicant was on UDP in Okinawa and while on liberty, he performed significant heroic acts during a diving mishap.  One of his dive buddies, a Marine Corps Corporal, was knocked into the rocks by large waves and he was rendered unconscious.  The Applicant recognized the gravity of the situation and he performed immediate first aid, called in a medevac helicopter, and helped load the injured Marine into the helicopter.  For his action, he was recognized by the Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) Association and presented with the FY15 Vanguard Award.  

During this period of service, the Applicant executed permanent change of station orders to the Marine Corps Engineer School where he performed the duties of a clinic corpsman until he was relieved due to loss of confidence, trust, and inability to perform his duties around student personnel.  During this period, the NDRB noted his evaluations during this period were below average to average and no significant achievements were found.  

The Applicant completed two enlistment periods with an Honorable characterization of his service.  Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation, and characterization of service is determined for that specific period.  Characterization of service at discharge is the recognition of a service member’s performance and conduct during a period of enlistment and is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation.  In conclusion, the NDRB determined that his command acted properly and equitably in determining the characterization of service and found this characterization to be appropriate considering his SILT request, length of service, and his misconduct.  Relief denied on this issue. 

Issue 3: The Applicant contends his post-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade. 

The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.  The NDRB considers 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.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.   In support of this issue, the Applicant indicated he has been employed with a Solar Panel company and has aspirations of attending medical school with a hope of serving veterans in the future.  Today, he is also devoted assisting veterans with processing benefit claims and coping with everyday life.  Various employment documents and three character statements were enclosed with his petition.  While the NDRB did not grant relief for this specific issue alone it was assessed into the context of the complete deliberation pertaining to his petition for an upgrade. 

Issue 4:  The Applicant contends his discharge is improper and inequitable because his command did not give sufficient consideration to his Mental Health during this period of service and in the conduct of separation proceedings.   

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

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

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

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience 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, regarding the, unclaimed, diagnoses of:
1.  Delusional disorders:  Mixed Type with Grandiosity and Persecution” and, probable diagnosis:
2.  Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.

Not quite as certain regarding PTSD, MST, and TBI which, though formally diagnosed by the VA, the presence of a compelling narrative for MST, and a score of “67” (in positive range for PTSD on the Feb 2018 PCL questionnaire) the possibility of at least a complicating paranoid delusion (see above) along with the absence of confirmatory physical evidence of bleeding/bruising trauma on physical examination in the pivotal but relatively terse Camp Lejeune reported post alleged MST medical examination is noted.  Nor do the submitted VA records fully document the evidentiary basis for their diagnostic conclusions.
	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, with respect to:
1. Delusional disorders: Mixed Type with Grandiosity and Persecution.
2. Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.
Possibly, with respect to the claim of PTSD/MST (see above).	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes; predominantly with respect to
1. Delusional disorders: Mixed Type with Grandiosity and Persecution.
	
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:	Diagnosis during service and post-service support mitigation for the misconduct contributing to the Applicant’s discharge. Delusional and adjustment disorder diagnosis account for the erratic and sudden change in the Applicant’s behavior. Previous enlistments substantiate that the misconduct contributing to his discharge was uncharacteristic of a Sailor that had earned individual awards, reenlisted twice and completed two combat deployments.  Misconduct also aligns with care and a prescribed drug whose side effects align with the behaviors of the Applicant. Treatment, diagnosis and medication while in service also support reason for upgrade given the Applicant’s efforts to get help.  Accounting for the specific behavior and diagnosis I can establish a nexus between the Applicant’s mental health and the misconduct during the period of time under review. In addition, the success of the Applicant post-service with continued therapy and stabilized medications support reason to apply mitigation and liberal consideration.  

1. Delusional disorders:  Mixed Type with Grandiosity and Persecution.
2. Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood…

UNSPECIFIED PSYCHOTIC DISORDER, BY HISTORY and ADJUSTMENT DISORDER WITH MIXED ANXIETY AND DEPRESSED MOOD”

Moreover, as noted above, a 10 Nov 2022 “VA MENTAL HEALTH NOTE” mentioned above, included, “When asked about his Abilify [Arip he states he was placed on it for delusional disorder “and has not had any delusions since being on it and would like to remain on it.”  Despite nominally conflicting evidence, the fact that a paranoid psychosis was diagnosed during the timeframe of the offenses resulting in prescription of a long term injectable anti schizophrenic regiment for which he acknowledged long term advantage suggests application of reasonable doubt is indicated, such that consideration of the application of Kurta guidance emphasizing equity and fairness is indicated.	

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included a period of misconduct that included behavioral patterns not representative of the record of service he had accomplished during previous enlistments.  A review of the record reveals a rapid and sudden commission of misconduct that included issues of disobedience, lapses in integrity and lack of care for good order and discipline.  The misconduct documented on face value reflects a willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his Mental Health Diagnosis was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of a Mental Health Diagnosis, coupled with additional post-service documentation provided by the Applicant, support the Applicant’s contention that his Mental Health Diagnosis was a mitigating factor associated with the in-service misconduct.  Moreover, the NDRB determined that the unique circumstances of this individual case, coupled with the documented Mental Health Diagnosis, and the Applicant’s service in combat, warranted additional consideration in the determination of overall characterization of service.  By a vote of 3-0, the NDRB found that the awarded characterization of service was inequitable and that relief in the form of an upgrade in the characterization of service to General is warranted.

Of significance to the Board’s evaluation and determination was the sudden and uncharacteristic behavioral changes of the Applicant.  Associated with this same time period were diagnosis by medical officers who assessed conditions that include depression, schizophrenia, paranoia and delusional disorder.  The Applicant was also prescribed Invega Sustenna (Paliperidone palmitate, a long acting injectable form of Abilify targeting “Schizophrenia”) which is for affected patients for whom maintaining a regular oral maintenance schedule is difficult.  Given the timing of the diagnosis, prescribed treatment side effects and the correspondence in time and behavior of the misconduct, the NDRB did find grounds for mitigation.  The Board was challenged to grant clemency due to a lack of complete understanding of the complex dynamics of all the misconduct and that the Applicant had some level of accountability/awareness from right and wrong as documented within the record.  Additional mitigation perhaps could be applied with more understanding of the circumstances and perspective of the Applicant in a personal appearance hearing.  Given the factors of the misconduct and applying medical diagnosis the Board did agree that partial relief is warranted with an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions).

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 with a corresponding separation code of KFS, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Additional NDRB Reviews: After receiving a NDRB Document Review, an Applicant remains eligible for a Personal Appearance/Telephonic Hearing if the application is received by the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claim(s) related to their discharge as well as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing by an Attorney (or Advocate) is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  However, if you have been discharged for more than 15 years, already had a personal appearance hearing, or otherwise exhausted your opportunity to be heard by the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Appeal Procedures on NDRB Decision: If you contest the NDRB’s decision in your case AND you already contested the NDRB’s previous decision at a Personal Appearance Hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunity before the NDRB (or it has been more than 15 years since your discharge), the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.  The BCNR is the highest level of administrative review within the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps to correct errors or injustices to member’s records.

Complaint Procedures on Format: If you believe the decision in your case is ambiguous, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity (JSRA), OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the DoD Instruction 1332.28 before submitting such a complaint.  This complaint procedure does not permit a challenge on the merits of the NDRB’s decision; the JSRA is designed solely to ensure that the NDRB decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  Therefore, if you are contesting the merits of the NDRB’s decision and already had a NDRB personal appearance hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may appeal/petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  (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 ofor 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.