ex-PS1, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220607
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:  REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	               	Active:	 20000809 - 20070117  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20070118	Age at Enlistment:  26
Period of Enlistment:  2 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20090109	Highest Rank/Rate:  PS1
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  11  Month(s)  22  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  85
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.33 (3)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.66 (3)   OTA: 2.95 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NMCAM GCM(2) NDSM GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:    NJP:  NONE  Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20190318
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND18-00890
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.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 23, 15 May 2008 until 22 November 2009, Article 1910-152, SEPARATION BY REASON OF 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 her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and military sexual trauma (MST) were mitigating factors in her discharge.
2.	The Applicant contends that her post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.

Discussion

Date:  20240426		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (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 MST 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 her PTSD and MST were mitigating factors in her discharge.  Additionally, the Applicant contends that her post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.

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.  

When reviewing discharges, the NDRB considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

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

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

In this case, the NDRB found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	USN: Alcohol Dependence; likely, an alluded to but otherwise not formally diagnosed Adjustment Disorder, and, possibly, PTSD & MST.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, per above.	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Arguably as noted above; but not exculpating.	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Likely, Yes though full documentation not located.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	ABBREVIATIONS MAY INCLUDE: AHLTA: Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application FNAS: From NDRB APPLICATION Submission p(p): page(s)/out of total number of pages in casefile Issues: 1. The Applicant contends her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and military sexual trauma (MST) were mitigating factors in her misconduct. Applicant presents additional VA treatment records since her previous review, which she contends that her PTSD was due to two sexual assaults which occurred while in-service which led to her alcohol dependency. CASE HISTORY INCLUDES: PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT: Family History: Father’s likely PTSD (due to his having witnessed a shipmate being “sucked up into a jet engine”), Date of Birth: 05 Sep 1981 MEPS: AFQT: 85 ~2000—1st ENLISTMENT: @ Age ~19 2002—Marriage @ age ~21 followed by…[see FNAS:] “About two years into her service at Willow Grove, she married fellow-sailor, _____. Throughout the entirety of their marriage, Mr. _____ was both verbally and physically abusive…Despite this, persevered and performed well [however]…mood issues, anxiety, impaired sleep, and alcohol use began with her marital problems in 2006 As a sailor, which was memorialized in her evaluations. In one of her evaluations, her supervisor described her as ‘the epitome of Pride and Professionalism, who consistently goes above and beyond to provide,” earning an overall rating of 4.00. [In a later] evaluation, she was rated at 4.29 [as] …a ‘proven energetic self-starter…consistently sought out extra responsibility and taken on the hardest jobs’ and recommended for early promotion. While at Willow Grove, she took classes at Montgomery Community College, earning an associates degree in liberal arts…also earned the Military Achiever of the Month award in March and May of 2002, and was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (NMCAM) in 2004. In August of 2004, [the Applicant] _______ transferred to the Enlisted Personnel Management Center (EPMAC) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Finally, high arousal involves anxiety, trouble sleeping, and panic attacks…made work life balance challenging, but the multiple panic attacks were quite debilitating. One particular attack in the Fall of 2004 caused her to hyperventilate to the point of passing out at work…taken to a civilian hospital in an ambulance, and while she was in the emergency room, she suffered another attack. The physician… recommended that Ms. ____ go in for psychiatric treatment…the doctor prescribed her anti-anxiety medication… made her feel like a ‘complete zombie.’ Worried about how the medication was affecting her and her performance at work, she stopped taking it. [see p 15/98] Desperate to fit in with her peers, she started to drink, even though she rarely consumed alcohol before then. Ms. ____ noted…the more she drank, the more she 'was accepted by the young sailors. One of the lieutenants befriended [her]…both worked at the Bureau of Naval Personnel; the lieutenant was the head of one of the Manning Control Authorities, and Ms. _____ repeatedly had to confer with him or his office to expedite or receive approval for changes…[he] started initiating more personal conversations…[he] was ten years older than [her], became…one of the few people she felt she could trust. In the Fall of 2007, while on a lunch break, Ms. _____ decided to go back to her room in the barracks. The lieutenant stopped her in the hallway and was joking around about doing a room inspection. Ms. ______ thought it was odd since he was not in her direct chain of command…While stationed in New Orleans, she continued to excel earning a 4.00 rating and was praised for her expert management skills, ‘exemplary bearing’ directly influencing three sailors to reenlist, and innovation when she ‘proactively developed a process for integration of NTMPS and JASS into the daily placement functions.’ Tragically, on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans…’ Not surprisingly, Ms. ______ lost her home and nearly everything she owned. Her command was officially relocated to Millington…June of 2006. A few months later, she was transferred to Navy Personnel Command (NPC). Yet, Ms. _______ was resilient. In her evaluation, she was rated as a 4.17, and her supervisor wrote that she was ‘#2 of 17 outstanding second class petty officers and an integral member of my command.’ … Her supervisor said succinctly, Ms. ______ ‘gets the job
done, gets it done right. Exceptional leader, resourceful and intelligent.’ In her subsequent rating period, she was rated as a 4.57, described as an ‘outstanding Sailor relied on for my toughest jobs,” and once again recommended for early promotion.’ Per Applicant’s contentions (PACs): ‘Promoted to E6 early 2007…’” 2007—“After enduring years of abuse from her sailor-husband, Ms. ___ separated from Mr. _______ …when he was deployed to Iraq…As a result of her separation, Ms. _______ was moved back into the barracks. Sadly, tragedy struck again. In the fall of 2007, a Navy lieutenant in her unit raped Ms. ______ in her barracks room [see above “2002-” note].” 10 Nov 2008—“Dx …resulted in assignment to 28 day Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOT) at Naval Hospital Jacksonville, FL, Ultimately would ‘take anything just to get out.’” 16 Nov 2008—POSITIVE BREATHALYZER TEST: Led to “transitioned to a residential level of care.” 25 Nov 2008—“moved back to the IOT.” 29 Nov 2008—“again tested positive on the breathalyzer…classified as a treatment failure by the SARP team and her treatment was terminated.” 02 Dec 2008—“Notification of ADSEP Proceedings & Reason: … 2 DEC 2008/ARF” After 01 Year(s) 11 Month(s) 22 Day(s) 09 Jan 2009—DISCHARGE: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE/CONDITIONS) ALCOHOL REHAB FAILURE/HPD/RE-4 —Petition contends this was “avoidant behavior of undiagnosed PTSD and would do anything to get out of the Navy” Performance/Proficiency: 4.33 (3) Behavior/Conduct: 2.66 (3) OTA: 2.95 2015—“VA’s…C&P exam concluded that she a service connected chronic adjustment disorder caused by her Abusive in-service marriage… POST SEPARATION: 2013—“September 7, 2013, Ms. _____ drank her last sip of alcohol… nearly nine years ago, she is alcohol-free…” 2015—“VA’s…C&P exam concluded that she a service connected chronic adjustment disorder caused by her Abusive in-service marriage… The Applicant has successfully completed three residential alcohol rehabilitation programs at the VA and has been sober for nine years. Additionally, she has earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Health and Wellness from Purdue University and works at NC Works Career Center where she identifies and promotes available job opportunities, training programs, and various government and community resources to unemployed or underemployed veterans, and volunteers with multiple veteran
organizations including the American Legion where she is currently the commander of American Legion Post 540.” 26 Jun 2014—VA FORM 21-078 PTSD REPORT FORM 18 Mar 2019—NDRB Documentary Review (ND18-00890): Findings: 5-0, Proper as issued, no change is warranted COMMENT: Against a formative background including the after effects of her Navy veteran father’s likely PTSD (due to his having witnessed a shipmate being “sucked up into a jet engine”), the academically gifted Applicant reported a productive school and social adjustment. The first appearance of an alcoholic blackout occurred shortly after high school graduation without other untoward consequences. The Applicant enlisted in the Navy embarking on a productive career despite having, allegedly, suffered continual physical and psychological abuse over a 2-4-year period by her, reportedly, envious active duty Navy husband. The record gives some indication symptoms of PTSD appeared for which she, reportedly, did seek assistance from Family Services only to be discouraged by their, reportedly, unsympathetic approach. Finally, she reported taking the initiative to obtain a divorce while her husband was deployed. This was followed by at least two alleged instances of MST rape starting with a senior LT in her command who threatened the Applicant should she report the offense. Early on, she reportedly approached Family Services whom she found unsympathetic. The Applicant’s acknowledged response was to take refuge in significantly increased alcohol intake, which was eventually noticed by her command resulting in SARP referrals. Initially, she attended a “3-day” SARP exposure in transit to her next assignment. Failing to sustain sobriety resulted in referral to Intensive Outpatient Treatment. At both programs she was the only female patient and, in any event, reported not having encountered anyone reporting MST or other trauma, nor was there reportedly any invitation to share such experiences as the programs’ focus was on Alcohol abstinence. Transition to civilian existence was reportedly quite difficult. However, her inner drive, intellectual abilities and the self-discipline inculcated by her mother led her to complete 3 VA alcohol rehabilitation programs, and a succession of academic, professional, and service-volunteer achievements including recently having achieved 10 years of sobriety and parenting a 6 year old daughter. The Applicant’s account of MST including later evaluation by the VA and post separation achievements presented a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, the sequence of events and circumstances noted above was not accompanied by a complete trail of witness and/or other supportive corroborative evidence contemporary the Applicant’s enlistment with respect to MST. Some consideration for relief appears indicated based upon clemency including pre- and post- offense achievements.	

The Applicant contends that her PTSD and MST were mitigating factors in her discharge.  The Applicant testified that she experienced two sexual assaults during her service which led to her PTSD and alcohol dependency.  After separating from her husband in which she endured a physically and verbally abusive relationship in early 2007, the Applicant testified that she was raped by Navy Lieutenant in her barracks rooms in Fall 2007.  Further, after being transferred to her final duty station, the Applicant testified that she was sexually assaulted by several Marines while she was unconscious at her on-base apartment in Summer 2008. 

Based on a review of the Applicant’s service records and available evidence, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  MILPERSMAN 1910-152 states in relevant part “unless a written waiver is obtained, commands shall process for Administrative Separation all members considered to be treatment failures or who have incurred a second or greater DUI.”  Further, the characterization of separation should be General (Under Honorable Conditions) unless an Uncharacterized or Honorable is warranted.  In this case, the NDRB determined the quality of the Applicant’s service met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel separated as an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, and it is appropriate to characterize the Applicant’s service as Honorable.

The Applicant further contends that her post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade of her narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  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.  The Applicant successfully completed three residential alcohol rehabilitation programs at the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and testified that she has been sober for nine years.  Additionally, she has earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Health and Wellness from Purdue University and is currently employed by the VA.  Further, the Applicant volunteers with multiple veteran organizations including the American Legion where she is currently the commander of American Legion Post 540.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review. 

The NDRB considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; her entire military performance and conduct; her mental health diagnosis; the nexus between her alcohol use and her mental and emotional stability; the severity of her conduct in relation to his discharge characterization; and her post-service conduct and achievements.  Consequently, the NDRB found that the narrative reason for separation should be changed to Secretarial Authority.  In accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the NDRB held that mitigation should be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In other words, the NDRB found that the Applicant’s PTSD and MST excused the maliciousness and willful nature of the Applicant’s alcohol abuse leading the narrative reason for which the Applicant was discharged.  In essence, the NDRB found that the underlying narrative reason for the Applicant’s discharge is not Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, but the Applicant’s inability for continued naval service.  As such, the NDRB held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed Honorable with a narrative reason for discharge of Secretarial Authority.  Relief granted.   

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB found .   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of 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.  (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, go to https://www.va.gov/find-locations/?facilityType=health.