ex- AD3, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220712
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (CIVIL CONVICTION)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-144 [CIVIL CONVICTION] 

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:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20040816	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20070613	Highest Rank/Rate:  AD3
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  11  Month(s)  27  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  51
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.0 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.0 (2)   OTA: 3.86 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM  

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

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

CC:  1

- 20070411:	Offense:  Possession of Marijuana 
	Sentence: Jail for 30 days with 30 days suspended.  

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20210422
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND20-01146
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:

	  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”
	  “MISCONDUCT (CIVIL CONVICTION)”
	
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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 12, effective 28 July 2005 until 10 June 2008, Article 1910-144, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Civilian Conviction. 

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

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his mental state and fear during his encounter with the police led to his arrest even though he was innocent.
2.	The Applicant contends that his discharge was due the misconception that he thought he would be able to stay in the Navy by taking a plea deal.
3.	The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable as there was an error during his separation proceedings and his command believed he was convicted of a more serious crime. 
4.	The Applicant contends that his misconduct must be viewed in the light of changing civilian legislation regarding marijuana.  
5.	The Applicant contends that his mental health crisis mitigates his civilian conviction. 
6.	The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

Discussion

Date:  20230302		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 of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

:  The Applicant contends that his mental state and fear during his encounter with the police led to his arrest even though he was innocent.

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

The Applicant stated that he returned from a 3-month deployment and discovered that his girlfriend was involved in an intimate relationship with another person.  This was a traumatic experience for the Applicant which resulted in a circumstance that he was drinking alcohol in his parked car with a friend.  Police encountered the Applicant in his car and observed that he was drinking alcohol in his car, where he was subsequently removed from the car and the police found him in possession of over half of an ounce marijuana.  In Virginia, possession of over half an ounce of marijuana can afford a felony charge for possession with the intent to sell.  The Applicant later accepted a plea deal to reduce this to a misdemeanor charge for possession of marijuana.  While the Applicant may feel that his mental state led to him admitting that the marijuana was his, the Applicant was afforded due process in civilian court to disprove his guilt.  As such, this is not an issue that the NDRB can use to establish as a basis for a discharge upgrade.  Relief denied.    

:  The Applicant contends that his discharge was due the misconception that he thought he would be able to stay in the Navy by taking a plea deal. 

As stated previously, the Applicant accepted a plea deal in civilian court by pleading guilty for possession of marijuana which reduced his charge to a misdemeanor from a felony charge of possession with the intent to sell.  By accepting this plea deal, the Applicant accepted responsibility for possession of marijuana which also makes him culpable of violating the Navy drug policy and Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant waived his rights to consult with counsel, request a hearing before an administrative board, and submit a rebuttal statement for separation.  If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made.  During an administrative separation board, the Applicant would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges.  Even though the Applicant was not convicted of a felony possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, he accepted responsibility of a misdemeanor offence of possession of marijuana and a violation of Article 112a.  Therefore, the Applicant was appropriately processed for administrative separation as required and the NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity with this process.  Relief denied.

:  The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable as there was an error during his separation proceedings and his command believed he was convicted of a more serious crime.  

The Applicant contends he was separated from military service after his felony charges for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell were reduced to a misdemeanor charge for possession of marijuana following a plea deal.  The NDRB is not bound by decisions of the civilian courts to reduce or dismiss charges against the Applicant.  However, this information can be and was considered by the NDRB in making a determination as to the equity of the characterization of service.  The Applicant’s misconduct does not require adjudication by nonjudicial, judicial proceedings, or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The Applicant was notified of separation due to misconduct – civil conviction as evidenced by the documentation for a Virginia state civilian conviction for possession of marijuana.  The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the potential of being discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions as stated in the letter of notification of administrative separation.  Relief denied.

4:  The Applicant contends that his misconduct must be viewed in the light of changing civilian legislation regarding marijuana.  

The Applicant contends that the severity of one’s misconduct may change over time by providing the example that marijuana is now legal under some state’s law while still unlawful in the military.  The Applicant accepted a plea deal for a misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana in civilian court.  Though the Applicant testified his innocence to the NDRB during the hearing, he failed to claim his innocence during his administrative separation process as he waived his right to an administrative separation board and statement.  Therefore, the NDRB finds that the Applicant’s command could have processed him for administrative separation for either a civilian conviction or for violation of the Navy drug policy.  The NDRB did not discern any impropriety or inequity in relation to the Applicant’s discharge as his command based his discharge on the information available to them at that time.  Relief denied.       

Issues 5-6:  The Applicant contends that his mental health crisis mitigates his civilian conviction and that the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

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 did not outweigh 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, likely an undiagnosed severe Adjustment Disorder With Mixed disturbance of Emotions and Conduct (USN); Schizophrenia, PTSD & Bipolar Disorder (diagnosed 13  years post discharged and not specifically traced to active service with no evidence of their presence contemporary with his enlistment)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, Adjustment Disorder; No (Schizophrenia, etc.—see above)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes, Adjustment Disorder assuming misconduct actually, occurred; No (Schizophrenia, etc.—see above) 	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Uncertain; no documentation found in Service Treatment Record	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	Data includes:

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

Raised in many settings much to his frustration due to family issues, with his mother having been the more constant figure.
From ages 6-11was in Boarding School. 
Education:  12

16 Aug 2004—USN ENLISTMENT:  @19 yo:
AFQT:  51
 
05 Oct 2005 – 28 Feb 2006—FITREP: 
ITA:  3.29
“Individual efforts were instrumental in the successful completion of 2,100 maintenance actions with limited resources requiring no rework./MUST PROMOTE
Recommended for advancement and retention.
 
01 Mar – 15 Jun 2006—FITREP:
40. Individual Trait Avg. 3.57
“Displays excellence and enthusiasm in the performance of his duties…As IM2 Damage Control Petty Officer (DCPO) completed 2,053 maintenance actions and 12 flawless spot checks greatly contributing to the Department achieving a Readiness Accomplishment Rate (RAR) of 97.7 percent and an over all material readiness rate of 98.4 percent.”/MUST PROMOTE
 
27 Jul 2006—date of misconduct.

11 Apr 2007— CC:  1
  Offense:  Possession of Marijuana with intent to Distribute. 
	Sentence: Jail for 30 days with 30 days suspended.  

13 Jun 2007—DISCHARGE IN ABSENTIA from  USS HARRY S TRUMAN CVN 75: UOTH/MISCONDUCT-CIVIL CONVICTION:  2 year 11 mo 27 day enlistment; highest rank AD3; HKB;  RE-4; Performance/Proficiency: 4.0 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.0 (2)   OTA: 3.86
POST SEPARATION:

19 May 2020 (Almost 13 YEARS LATER)—“Revived Soul Medical P.C.,” BROOKLYN NY Civilian Psychiatrist Note:
HISTORY: [Applicant] is a 34-year-old man. His chief complaint is, "I am in drug and rehap [sic]in Louisana 
since the 9th of April I am betreated [sic, being treated] for alcohol abuse"
 
“Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
[Applicant] describes symptoms of PTSD. He experienced a traumatic event that involved actual or 
threatened death or serious injury. Afterwards, feelings of intense fear and helplessness have been 
experienced.
[Applicant] reports that he has the following PTSD symptoms: "Difficulty concentrating
"Difficulty Sleeping
"Diminished interest in important affairs
"Efforts to avoid reminders of the traumatic event
*Flashbacks
*Irritability or angry outbursts
*Recurring, intrusive, and distressing recollections of the incident”

Addiction/Use History:
[Applicant] has a history of possible alcohol over use.
 
“DIAGNOSES:  
Bipolar disorder, current episode depressed, mild or moderate severity, unspecified… 
Post-traumatic stress disorder, unspecified, F43.10 (ICD-10) (Active) Alcohol abuse, in remission…
No medicati[o]ns prescribed at this time”

22Apr 2021—NDRB/ND20-01146:  NO CHANGE WARRANTED
 
02 - 09 Mar 2021—DISCHARGE SUMMARY (NYHHS-PSYCH):  PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS:  Schizophrenia
OTHER PERTINENT DIAGNOSIS: Substance use disorder (cannabis, alcohol)
“SUMMARY OF THE HOSPITAL COURSE:
Patient BIB by mother to Brooklyn VA due to disorganized speech and behavior; transferred to Manhattan VA for inpatient admission to psychiatry. On admission, patient described delusions of reference and persecution, possible religious preoccupation, social withdrawal, and SI. He also endorsed recent THC and alcohol use, unable to quantify beyond ‘a lot’. MSE revealed disorganized thought. Clinical picture consistent with schizophrenia and risperidone 1 mg BID started with plan to convert to paliperidone, LAI [Long Acting Injectable] discussed with and agreed to by patient. On evening of admission, patient declined MRI after being transported to the imaging floor, asked to leave and filed a 72 hour letter. He then became agitated, required physical restraints and haloperidol/ lorezapam PRN with good effect. The following day, patient reported improved mood and was calm, cooperative, and pleasant to talk to, social with staff and peers…”

COMMENT:  Despite having reportedly experienced a somewhat chaotic upbringing, involving numerous moves and placement in Boarding Schools by his parents, the Applicant completed High School, enlisted in the Navy,  achieved an initial record of success in the pursuit of a Navy career and established what he felt to have been a loving, devoted family-like relationship with a local area civilian woman and her children when, on return from a several month deployment,  he suffered the crushing blow of being, immediately, greeted by her ‘in the arms of another man.’  That shock, precipitously, set off an evening drinking spree resulting in his civilian (Virginia) arrest whereupon a quantity of Marijuana was discovered in his car (vehicle had apparently been potentially available to others during his deployment).  He admits to having been the victim of his own ignorance and poor decision making at that time and in the face of a series of subsequent opportunities for professional assistance in the service of salvaging his Navy career.  Despite nominal success in the pursuit of a post discharge career utilizing his athletic and teaching skills (including donating time to civilian causes and, incidentally, resulting in having saved many lives), along with co-parenting a now 12 year old daughter, he remains dedicated to his appeal process.  Similarly, despite the additional post discharge history of mental health related symptoms beginning about 12-13 years post discharge, hospitalizations and treatment for “Schizophrenia,” the applicant reports being off psychotropic medication and not formally engaged in psychotherapy for the past three years apart from informal contact with a VA counselor.  He denied substance abuse, except for a humorous reference to “coffee.”  While diffident and a bit vague in his recollection of details (which he attributed to the passage of time), he cooperated with the PAH process.   In conclusion, applying Liberal Consideration, it would appear, at the very least, a nexus can be established between the Misconduct and at least an undiagnosed severe Adjustment Disorder With Mixed disturbance of Emotions and Conduct…”     	

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

In this case, the Board found the member’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the NDRB considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his mental health and his mental and emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Further, the NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records for both in-service and post-service medical treatment from the VA and conducted a thorough review.  The NDRB did find multiple mental health diagnoses, specifically adjustment disorder, which could be a mitigating factor to the Applicant’s misconduct.  While the NDRB does find mitigation for the Applicant’s mental health in this specific case, the Applicant’s mental health does not rise to a level to completely absolve him of responsibility for his actions.  Consequently, the NDRB finds the Applicant’s service to be 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.  In making its determination, the NDRB considered the totality of the Applicant’s service both his misconduct and also his overall service which included his enlistment which included two positive evaluations for his service.  Further, the NDRB finds that the Applicant’s misconduct to be an isolated incident and found no other misconduct during his nearly three years of service.  The NDRB considered that the Applicant’s misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career but did not find that it rose to constitute a significant departure of military conduct.  Consequently, the NDRB found a change in characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was appropriate. 

Decision

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