ex- HN, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20220728
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:  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	             	Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20171120	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20190927	Highest Rank/Rate:  HN
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  08  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  92
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.0 (1)   Behavior/Conduct:  1.0 (1)   OTA:  2.67 
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  GWOTSM NDSM 

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

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

NJP:  1

- 20181214:	Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer) 
	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Article 134 (General article) 
	Awarded:  EPD RESTR ADMIN SEP
	Suspended:  NONE [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record dated 20190826]

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, Articles 89, 91, and 134.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
2.	The Applicant contends his mental health condition was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20230713		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 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer)
Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer)
Article 134 (General article)

:  The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.  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 provided a personal statement, evidence of continuous employment and medical certifications, and demonstrated participation in a non-profit for veterans.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.  In this case, the Board found merit in the Applicant’s post-service performance and conduct, but found it was insufficient as a sole basis in which to grant relief.  

:  The Applicant contends his mental health condition was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

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

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

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

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience 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 (Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood).
	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes.	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes, mitigating, though not entirely exonerating.	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	More or less; though unable to locate BUMED-type review.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	GENERAL HISTORY includes:

06 May 2019:  Apparent date of the above alleged insubordinate offense.

07 May 2019—MCRD PISC Branch Medical Clinic Post Hospitalization Safety Assessment Ph.D. Psychologist note:

“(S):  Patient was seen at MHU today secondary to recent safety assessment performed at BMH last night.  Patient was not admitted to BMH.  He denied any current safety concerns.  Patient stated that he was sent to the hospital because he had an emotional breakdown after being confronted about his actions by a group of Chiefs from his command.  Patient did not wish to discuss what his actions were.  He declined to provide any additional information other than that he had frozen up secondary to high stress/anxiety when being confronted by chain of command.  Patient alluded to a pre-service history of mental health care; however, when queried, he declined to discuss his history with provider.  During today’s post-hospital assessment, patient denied any elevated emotional distress.  He also denied any current suicidal or homicidal ideations, planning, or intent. He declined to engage in individual treatment at this time.  He was released and stated that he would be seeking out his CPO to discuss what he next step was.
(A):  DSM-V Diagnosis:  Deferred
(P):  Recommendations/Treatment Plan
Patient currently appears to be psychiatrically Fit for Full Duty and is returned to the same.  He remains responsible for her actions and subject to normal channels of discipline/counseling.
Patient has declined to participate in any individual therapy or medication management sessions at this time.  He is aware that he may return to this clinic, as needed, in the future.  Patient was counseled that his command could request a Fitness for Duty/Suitability evaluation in the future, if the[y] felt it necessary.
Patient does not appear to be an acute risk for harm to self or others.  He denied any current suicidal or homicidal ideations, planning, or intent.”
(A):  DSM-V [sic] Diagnosis:  Deferred
(P):  Recommendations/Treatment Plan
Patient currently appears to be psychiatrically Fit for Full Duty and is returned to the same.  He remains responsible for her actions and subject to normal channels of discipline/counseling.
Patient has declined to participate in any individual therapy or medication management sessions at this time.  He is aware that he may return to this clinic, as needed, in the future.
Patient was counseled that his command could request a Fitness for Duty/Suitability evaluation in the future, if the[y?] felt it necessary.
Patient does not appear to be an acute risk for harm to self or others.  He denied any current suicidal or homicidal ideations, planning, or intent.”

AHLTA Notes Index listed the Diagnosis of Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood for the following dates:
30 Jul 2019 MCRD Mental Health Clinic Naval Health Clinic Charleston
01 Aug 2019 MCRD Perm-Party Naval Health Clinic Charleston
21 Aug 2019 BNH Mental Health Svcs Naval Health Clinic Charleston
22 Aug 2019 BNH Mental Health Svcs  Naval Health Clinic Charleston
10 Sep 2019 MCRD Mental Health Clinic Naval Health Clinic Charleston
18 Sep 2019 MCRD Mental Health Clinic Naval Health Clinic Charleston
25 Sep 2019—Clinical Note included:
“Diagnosis:  Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (F43.23)”

16 Sep 2019—SEPARATION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

18 Sep 2019—Note Written by Ph.D. Psychologist
MCRD Parris Island Mental Health Unit Progress Note
Session #: 2
(S):  Today was patient’s 1st follow up session with _______. This is his first session in 6 weeks.  He reported his mood as “sad/anxious.” He reported elevated anxiety and depressive symptoms secondary to his pending separation from military.  He believes that it will be soon because he has completed his TRS course and is awaiting his appointment with career counselor.  When queried about coping skills, patient stated the following:  listening to music, watching TV, and spending time with friends.  During recent hurricane evacuation, patient visited the area that he is considering moving to after military.  He stated that he felt better during that visit.  The remainder of today’s session was spent on discussing his planning for separation.  He agreed to go online and search for job/veteran resources in the area he plans to move to.
(O):  Patient was alert and appeared oriented.  He was dressed in UOD; grooming and hygiene were good.  He demonstrated good eye contact throughout session.  Psychomotor behavior was unremarkable.  Speech was normal in rate, tone, and volume.  Self-reported mood was “sad/anxious” which was consistent with observed anxious and mildly dysphoric mood.  Affect was appropriate to mood and full ranging.  Patient denied any current suicidal or homicidal ideations, planning, or intent.  Insight and judgment appeared intact.
Suicide/Homicidal Risk Assessment:  Patient currently appears to be low risk for harm to self or others.  He denied any current suicidal/homicidal ideations, planning, or intent.  At the time of this session, patient appeared competent to be released to his own custody.
Pain:  0/10
(A):  DSM-V [sic] Diagnosis:  Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood
(P):  Recommendations/Treatment Plan
1.  Patient is considered psychiatrically Fit for Full Duty.  He remains responsible for his actions and subject to normal channels of discipline/ counseling.

25 Sep 2019—MCRD PISC Mental Health Unit Progress Note:

Session #:  4
(S):  He reported his mood as “frustrated/worn out.” His frustration is related to not receiving his orders to separate.  He stated that he was not told what the delay in paperwork is, but that it is preventing him from being able to give prospective jobs a start time.  In terms of coping with stress, he recently purchased a new video game system and several games.  They have been providing him with stress relief and distraction.  Patient and provider discussed housing.

Patient stated that he is planning to live in a campground in North Carolina until more permanent quarters can be found.  He continues to be in touch with veteran resources in North Carolina.

(O):  Patient was alert and appeared oriented.  He was dressed in UOD; grooming and hygiene were good.  He demonstrated good eye contact throughout session.  Psychomotor behavior was unremarkable…

(A):  DSM-V Diagnosis:  Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood

(P):  Recommendations/Treatment Plan
1.  Patient is considered psychiatrically Fit for Full Duty.  He remains responsible for his actions and subject to normal channels of discipline/counseling.
2.  Patient is currently being processed for administrative separation from military secondary to punitive measures.
3.  Patient has declined to seek treatment with this provider at this time. He agreed to meet for several appointments prior to his separation to process his mood symptoms and plan…
4.  Patient appears to be low risk for harm to self or others.

30 Sep 2019—Ph.D. Psychologist clinical note included:
(S):  Today was patient’s 3rd follow up session with LCDR Ford.  He reported his mood as “frustrated/worn out.” His frustration is related to not receiving his orders to separate.  He stated that he was not told what the delay in paperwork is, but that it is preventing him from being able to give prospective jobs a start time.  In terms of coping with stress, he recently purchased a new video game system and several games.  They have been providing him with stress relief and distraction. Patient and provider discussed housing.

(O):  Patient was alert and appeared oriented.  He was dressed in UOD; grooming and hygiene were good.  He demonstrated good eye contact throughout session.  Psychomotor behavior was unremarkable.
Speech was normal in rate, tone, and volume.  Self-reported mood was “frustrated/worn out” which was consistent with observed irritable mood. Affect was appropriate to mood and full ranging.  Patient denied any current suicidal or homicidal ideations, planning, or intent.  Insight and judgment appeared intact.

(A):  DSM-V Diagnosis:  Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood

(P):  Recommendations/Treatment Plan
1.  Patient is considered psychiatrically Fit for Full Duty.  He remains responsible for his actions and subject to normal channels of discipline/counseling.
2.  Patient is currently being processed for administrative separation from military secondary to punitive measures.”

27 Sep 2019—DISCHARGE:

POST SEPARATION:

*Below taken from DD Form 293/ 13 Jul 2012 “BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MILITARY UPGRADE” document:

25.  With the support from the Petitioners fellow veterans, he has been able to work on himself and get through his depression.  The depression the Petitioner had during his time in the United States Navy, contributed to his behaviors.

COMMENT:

Subject Application indicates a formative background of high intelligence, natural bent and devotion to the outdoors, parental divorce at age 10, problems with social acceptance and bullying related to his ADHD and reported “nerd” like-academic orientation.  In the context of an identity crisis (feeling “burned out”) at the age of 24 after attending a series of colleges post high school graduation, he decided to enlist in the Navy as a good fit for his career ambitions to pursue service as a Corpsman only to fall prey to a sequence of events beginning with feeling underutilized after a duty assignment change along with residing in an allegedly moldy and culturally challenging Barracks environment from which symptomatic relief came from an indication of approval for BAH authorization, in anticipation of which, he purchased a Recreation Vehicle (RV) which he ultimately planned on utilizing as a residence in a local campground.  Unfortunately, the delay resulted in his having, reportedly unwittingly violated regulations by moving his RV on base and, naively, plugging it into the barracks electrical system so as to function as a private residence while awaiting full BAH implementation only to, ultimately, lose BAH authorization due to his having fallen prey to a sequence of events, climaxing in a an acute, isolated profound briefly physically immobilizing anxiety “attack” which left him temporarily unable to respond in a timely way to orders which was, then, misinterpreted by two of his superiors as representing insubordination.  Several subsequent mental health related clinical visits, consistently, determined a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.  The Application narrative goes on to report an impressive post discharge course of achievements as noted above.  Although additional technical issues may exist with respect to the precisely appropriate characterization of the Applicant’s discharge, a mitigating, though less than completely exculpating nexus would appear to exist between his problematic behavior and his diagnosed psychiatric condition such as to at least merit consideration of clemency, fairness, and equity.   It is, additionally, noted neither PTSD (or MST) nor TBI is either claimed or evident. 	

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  However, the Board does not consider the Applicant’s in-service diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood stemming from occupational stressors to be of a sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct in totality.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s testimony during his hearing and in-service medical records; noted the Applicant was found fit for full duty; and was responsible for his actions and subject to normal channels of discipline/counseling; and noted he declined to participate in any individual therapy or medication management sessions.  Thus, the Board found an Honorable characterization of service unwarranted based solely off his medical diagnosis.  The Board did, however, find a change of his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority appropriate based on the aforementioned medical diagnosis.

Secondarily, the Board viewed this case through the lens of propriety and equity.  The Applicant received NJP for violation of Articles 89, 91, and 134.  This misconduct appears to revolve around a recreational vehicle (RV), disapproval of BAH, and disrespect.  In anticipation of being permitted BAH the Applicant purchased an RV, which he intended to live in off base.  While waiting for BAH approval the Applicant parked his RV in the parking lot of the barracks and plugged the vehicle’s power system into the barrack’s electrical system.  He was questioned about this by senior enlisted leadership and told the Board during his hearing that his chain of command ultimately decided to pull his BAH, which was currently being processed, over this incident.  Given he had purchased the RV with the intent to live in it after being told he would receive BAH, the Applicant suffered what he described as an “emotional breakdown.”  While not entirely clear to the Board how the remainder of this event transpired, at some point the Applicant was on the ground during his breakdown and was approached by a chief who told him to get up.  The Applicant failed to obey this order because his medical condition at that moment apparently left him unable to comply.  During this incident the Applicant’s commander (O5) approached and he failed to standup, salute, and render her the proper greeting of the day.  For this, the Applicant was taken to DRB, XOI, NJP, and was ultimately administratively separated for misconduct – serious offense.

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. 

In this case, the Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, although noting the Applicant’s service was far from flawless.  While the Board found no impropriety in the Applicant’s separation, it did question the equity of a General discharge given the minor disciplinary (non-felonious) nature of the Applicant’s misconduct.  Although the Board did not find an Honorable warranted based purely on the Applicant’s in-service medical diagnosis, the Board found based on equity (weighing the Applicant’s record of service and this isolated event) that the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  Putting these two separate issues together, the Board found a change to Honorable and Secretarial Authority appropriate in this case.  However, given the Applicant’s pre-service medical history, which included an ADHD diagnosis and the use of Lexapro, the Applicant’s in-service diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and the Applicant’s continued post-service mental health treatment, the Board did not find a change to his reentry code to RE-1 as requested appropriate.  Given the Applicants in-service diagnosis, the Board determined the most appropriate reentry code to be RE-3G.  

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  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of Jff, and the reentry code shall  RE-3G.  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.