ex-GMSN, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220712
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:		      	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20170214	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20200112	Highest Rank/Rate:  GMSN
Length of Service:  02 Year(s)  11  Month(s)  29  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  51
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.7 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.4 (2)   OTA: 2.67  
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  NDSM GWOTSM SSDR ESWS 

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

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

NJP:  1

- 20181214:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 107 (False official statements) 
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD  Suspended:  FOP

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20201203
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND20-00969
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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 43, effective 31 May 2013 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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

C.  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 92 and 107.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The Applicant contends that serious personal issues and the stress and anxiety that they created afford mitigation to the      misconduct she was found to have committed. 
2.  The Applicant contends that her discharge is unjust and too harsh. 

Discussion

Date:  20221128		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.

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:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
Article 107 (False official statements)

:  The Applicant contends that serious personal issues and the stress and anxiety that they created afford mitigation to the misconduct she was found to have committed.  Additionally, the Applicant contends that her discharge is unjust and too harsh.

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

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

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 did exist during military service; c) the condition/experience did mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service?	Yes – Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Spectrum Disorder (Military) 
Less likely PTSD (VA) unless in prodromal form. 	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	YES	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	PENDING PAH	
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:	APPLICANT’s PETITION:
Mental health conditions mitigate the misconduct and include, “a month before I was separated of being the soul provider for my two brothers, as my grandparents had just kicked them out…This added tension of having to be a parent, while in the Navy and married, took a chunk of my mental health…started drinking more.  Stopped going to the gym which is a red flag coming from a bodybuilder with no support…I drank a bottle of wine withdrawn… woke up late the next day which brings me where I am today. Which is jobless, in a pandemic…was separated for a pattern of misconduct when my offenses were nearly a year and a half apart, whereas, my husband received two NJP’s in less then a month time and did not get separated when our offenses degree was the same…I had a few slip-ups.  I experienced severe sexism whilst serving and that was a factor of my mental decline as well...I developed PTSD during my service…and it continues to haunt me…I also endured an unspeakable amount of harassment instigated by male sailors, both verbal and physical…”

EPTS: Date of Birth 8 Aug 1998

MEPS:  ETOH or Drug use Hx “NEVER” used.

             Education Level:  12 AFQT:  51

             “BOTH AND I HAVE BEEN URGED BY RECRUITING PERSONNEL TO HAVE STAY IN SCHOOL AND GRADUATE IF POSSIBLE PRIOR TO ENLISTING BUT I HAVE DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE OF…TO ENLIST…AT THIS TIME… [SIGNED BY MOTHER]”

14 Feb 2017: ENLISTMENT @ AGE 18

9 Feb 2018:  Chronological Record of Medical Care form with “NO” checks for Depression/Anxiety

6 Jun 2018:  Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
                    Article 107 (False official statements)
                   Awarded:  FOP [SUSPENDED]  RESTR  EPD

2018:  Hx Recurring Anxiety and Panic Attacks start & Treatment Sought.

14 Nov 2018: Progress Note:  “20…c/o Long term anxiety…for several years.  No acute   Pt now…finding it difficult to progress in job with anxiety.  Denies SI/HI.  0 MH Hx.  Sent by Command Chaplain for eval…counselling [?]…RTC PRN.”

Sep – Nov 2018 – Seen by ship’s medical for anxiety/panic attacks

8 March 2019:  DEPLOYMENT MENTAL HEALTH ASSMENT:  Copy cut off in part but concludes with no motivation for further follow up.

13 Apr 2018:  1st Offense (Applicant’s testimony).

5 Oct 2019:  “c/c of Anxiety attack…found out she was going on to be put on report this evening.  States she has a history of Anxiety…not taking any meds for Anxiety.”  F/U…

   Jan 2020: Mental Health Evaluation.  Copy cut off in part but concludes with no motivation for further follow up.

31 Jan 2020:  
Item #29:  Many somatic complaints; and “Depression reoccurring starting 2018.  Treatment sought.  Recurring anxiety and panic attack starting 2018.  Treatment sought…Been evaluated for mental health Jan 2020…” 

12 Feb 2020:  Separation Date at the rank of GMSN/E3 after 2 years 11 months 29 days active service GENERAL UHC due to MISCONDUCT/COSO/RE-4
    PRO/CON:  2.7 (2)/2.4 (2)  OTA:  2.67
    OIF/OEF:  None
    SEA SERVICE:  2yrs 3mos 4d
    OTHER;  Highest rank was probably GM3

13 Feb 2020:  Reported Effective date of the following VA determination:  9411-POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER(50% SC) - FEB 12,2020 – Neither the date of this determination nor the supporting VA C&P and other clinical data were included.

26 Feb 2020 ”Post 9/11 Outreach Call” with VA re “Veteran reported that she would like to be connected to MH for Sx's that align w/ ADD. She noted "I can’t concentrate and its making everything really difficult". Veteran was introduced to CM services due to her needs (See POST911/SCREEN note) however declined at this moment noting ‘I just want to deal w/ the ADD first’".

24 Aug 2020:  VA Encounter
“Asked about ongoing concerns and changes since the March 23, 2020 intake,
Veteran noted that she has been feeling particular stress because she is responsible for taking care of her 15 year old brother, but feels at her young age of 22 this is difficult. She stated "I take care of my little brother, I don't have any help from anybody, that's kind of concern right now." Both parents are currently homeless. Veteran also noted desire to obtain legal custody of her brother. She works for Lyft part time and is able to pay bills…”

20 Apr 2021:  NDRB DR including a medical officer member concluded the discharge had been properly adjudicated, and no change was indicated.

29 Dec 2021:  VA Letter indicated the applicant was considered to be “totally and permanently disabled for a number of conditions with a combined service-connected evaluation of 100% effective 13 February 2020.”  

Conclusion:  Applicant appears to have been dealing with critical family dysfunction issues prior to enlistment including neglectful or abusive behavior of her mother towards her and her brothers punctuated by periods of anxiety which became compounded by adjustment difficulties to the community (reportedly including continual sexual harassment), ultimately even further complicated by her need to take in her then homeless two brothers (and, possibly, mother) into the 2 bed apartment which she shared with her newly wed husband.  Although seen several times medically and, at least transiently prescribed Effexor (Venlafaxine) she elected not to share her, now, reported sexual abuse with either the well-publicized appropriate military counseling services or authorities.  Nor is there a record of cardinal symptoms or a diagnosis of PTSD (later Dx’d by the VA) during her enlistment, suggesting the diagnosis of an ADJUSTMENT DISORDER during that period. 

The available evidence supports a mitigating nexus between the misconduct and a Mental Condition as reflected in the 20 Apr 2021 NDRB DR decision.  	

The Applicant contends that the misconduct that led to her administrative separation is mitigated by personal circumstances and harassment she received from fellow sailor’s impacted her mental health.  Having to take over the care for her brothers and mother, the Applicant states that balancing the demands of her professional responsibilities with the need to care for her brothers and mother became overwhelming.  The stress and anxiety created by the situation is what she states contributed to the misconduct that led to her administrative separation.  While the Applicant may feel that her family difficulties were a contributing factor to her misconduct, they do not mitigate her disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the Naval Service, demonstrating she was unsuitable for further service.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation, to indicate she attempted to use the numerous services available for servicemembers who undergo personal problems or report any harassment to her chain of command during their enlistment, such as the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging, but leveraging the use of alcohol, per the Applicant’s statement, to cope with demands vice seeking assistance from leadership or available medical and readiness resources is not a reasonable excuse for a professional sailor.  Though the NDRB found the evidence to support a mitigating nexus between the misconduct and the Applicant’s mental health condition, the NDRB believes that appropriate mitigation was already provided by the command.  The evidence of record did not show that the Mental Health Diagnosis was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning her actions.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that a Mental Health Diagnosis did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.

The Applicant contends that her discharge is unjust and too harsh as others were treated differently and shown more tolerance and opportunity.  While other members of the Applicant’s unit may have been charged with the same or similar offenses, each case must stand on its own merits.  The Commanding Officer is allowed to consider matters for extenuation and mitigation unique to each individual.  Therefore no two cases, no matter how similar, are guaranteed to receive the same punishment.
The Applicant specifically compares the handling of her misconduct to that of her husband and states that she was unfairly discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct (POM).  The Applicant’s discharge narrative was not for a POM, but rather for Misconduct that justifies the narrative for a Serious Offense.  While the record is absent the specific documentation of the event that contributed to her administrative separation the Government enjoys the presumption of regularity.  From the Applicant’s testimony and narrative on her application she states that an alcohol related incident is the basis for a second act of misconduct during her tenure on active duty.  The Applicant in her testimony stated she was late for duty and had a breathalyzer test done at 1000 and blew a 0.7 BAC.  The record does show the Applicant received NJP for violations of Articles 92 and 107 on 20180606.  Being that a second act of misconduct was committed near the time of her separation the command could have separated the Applicant for a POM as the two acts of misconduct during a single enlistment period would substantiate this action.  Thus the Applicant’s claim that her POM narrative is unjust is not only inaccurate in the fact that it is not the narrative she received, but it could have been used as a proper narrative if deemed appropriate by the Separation Authority (SA).  Instead the SA determined the Applicant’s second act of misconduct more appropriately justified a serious offense.  Absent specific facts of the incident within the record, and with only a minimal description of events from the Applicant, the NDRB presumed regularity and the misconduct committed substantiated the command’s actions and decisions.  Relief is denied. 

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

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) with a corresponding separation code of JKQ, and the reentry code shall  RE-4. The Applicant is no longer eligible for further reviews. 

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations.

Employment/Educational Opportunities: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & (d)(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.  If the Applicant’s claim of PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to: Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board, 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309, Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text 274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.